Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Mulching and water quality effects on soil salinity and sodicity dynamics and
cotton productivity in Central Asia
G.A. Bezborodov a , D.K. Shadmanov b , R.T. Mirhashimov b , T. Yuldashev c , A.S. Qureshi d , A.D. Noble e ,
M. Qadir f,g,∗
a
Uzbek Cotton Growing Research Institute, Kibray District, Tashkent Province, Uzbekistan
b
Uzbek Cotton Growing Research Institute, Gulistan District, Syr-Darya Province, Uzbekistan
c
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Central Asia and Caucasus Regional Office, Osiyo 6, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
d
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Pakistan Office, 12 km, Multan Road, Chowk Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore 53700, Pakistan
e
IWMI, South East Asia Office, P.O. Box 4199, Vientiane, Lao Democratic People’s Republic
f
ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
g
IWMI, P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water scarcity and the predicted impact of climate change will necessitate the use of alternate available
Received 3 December 2009 water resources in agriculture, such as saline water, to narrow the gap between demand and supply of
Received in revised form 8 April 2010 freshwater. Saline water, in combination with freshwater or alone, is used to irrigate cotton (Gossypium
Accepted 8 April 2010
hirsutum L.) in Central Asia in summer when there are often severe freshwater shortages. The use of
Available online 6 May 2010
saline water without appropriate management can result in the accumulation of salts in the root zone
with associated negative impacts on crop productivity. The accumulation of salts in surface soil layers
Keywords:
can be managed by reducing evaporation from the soil surface. A 3-year field study on a saline soil
Water scarcity
Water quality deterioration
(ECe = 13.9 dS m−1 ; SAR = 3.1) in the Syr-Darya River Basin of Uzbekistan was undertaken to evaluate
Soil salinity the effects of wheat straw mulching on alternate irrigation furrows (1.5 t ha−1 ) and different levels of
Soil sodicity irrigation water salinity (4.0, 6.2, and 8.3 dS m−1 ) on soil salinity and sodicity dynamics, cotton yield, and
Crop water productivity crop water productivity. Compared to the pre-experiment status in 2005, the average increase in salinity
Wheat straw in the upper 0.15 m layer of post-cotton 2007 soil under mulching treatments was significantly less than
Cotton yield the non-mulching treatments. On average, there was a 20% increase in surface soil salinity of the non-
Uzbekistan mulching treatments compared to the mulching treatments. These treatment differences were less with
increasing soil depth. Similar trends were observed with respect to changes in soil SAR in the top soil and
across the soil profile. Cotton yield and water productivity under mulching treatments were significantly
greater than non-mulched treatments at a given irrigation water salinity level. In addition, cotton yields
were up to 800 kg ha−1 higher and crop water productivity (lint + seed) up to 0.47 kg m−3 greater in the
mulching treatments than the farmers’ managed fields with conventional practices in the same region.
These results suggest that by using appropriate combinations of water quality and mulching, there could
be substantial increase in crop yield and water productivity resulting in water savings of up to 0.5 m3
for each kg of cotton produced. When translated on a broader scale, such water savings are significant
in a region where freshwater supplies are constrained and salt-induced water quality deterioration is
widespread.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction arid regions has expanded substantially, particularly in the sec-

Irrigation plays an important role in crop production and agri-
cultural development in arid and semiarid regions (Bouwer, 2002;
Hillel and Vlek, 2005). The area of land under irrigation in the
∗ Corresponding author at: ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria.
Tel.: +963 21 26912535; fax: +963 21 2213490.
E-mail address: m.qadir@cgiar.org (M. Qadir).
ond half of the twentieth century. However, further expansion will
have to occur within the limits of annual renewable freshwater
resources, which have largely been allocated already to various
water-use sectors in many places. Competition among domestic,
industrial, environmental, and agricultural sectors already exists
and will inevitably increase. This will necessitate a gradual decrease
in freshwater allocation to agriculture (Tilman et al., 2002). This
phenomenon is expected to continue and to intensify in less devel-
oped countries in arid regions that already have high population

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.04.005
96 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102
growth rates and suffer environmental degradation (Qadir and
Oster, 2004). With the prevalence of freshwater scarcity, most
countries in Central and West Asia and North Africa face similar
challenges (Thomas, 2008).
As an alternative to freshwater scarcity, water resources of
marginal quality—such as saline water generated by agricultural
drainage systems or pumped from saline aquifers—can be used to
narrow the gap between freshwater demand and supply (Rhoades,
1999; Dıaz and Grattan, 2009). For example, marginal-quality
water is being used in Central Asian countries to irrigate cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum L.), which is the most important crop in the
region grown in summer when there are often severe shortages of
freshwater at critical growth stages (Qadir et al., 2009; Vyshpolsky
et al., in press). Farmers in Syr-Darya River Basin in Uzbekistan irri-
gate cotton with moderately saline water (total soluble salts, TSS
∼2500 mg L−1 ; electrical conductivity, ECe ∼4 dS m−1 ) in combina-
tion with freshwater (Qadir et al., 2009). In areas where supplies of
freshwater and waters of moderate salinity are still not sufficient,
waters containing higher levels of soluble salts (TSS > 5000 mg L−1 ;
ECe > 8 dS m−1 ) are available. However, using high waters for irriga-
tion without appropriate management has the potential to trigger
the accumulation of salts in the root zone with negative effects on
crop productivity (Rhoades, 1989; Sharma and Minhas, 2005; Qadir
et al., 2007).
In addition to facilitate adequate leaching of the salts added
through saline water irrigation, soil and water management
approaches should attempt to reduce unproductive water losses
associated with evaporation from soil surfaces; increase soil mois-
ture storage; maintain soil physical properties in root zone;
enhance soil organic matter inputs and nutrient availability sta-
tus; and maintain soil salinity and sodicity levels within acceptable
crop production limits. Several approaches and techniques have
been used to address the aforementioned issues and include irri-
gating at night to reduce evaporation from the soil surface (Rhoades
et al., 1992; Rhoades, 1999); avoiding sprinkler irrigation in the
case of highly saline water (Ayers and Westcot, 1985); ensuring
irrigation water quality in accordance with crop salt tolerance or
crop growth stage (Maas and Grattan, 1999); using a pre-sowing
seed treatment to enhance germination; planting techniques such
as sowing on ridges; increasing seeding rates per unit area (Minhas,
1998); increasing applications of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers
(Minhas, 1996; Tanji and Kielen, 2002); and mulching of soil sur-
face with different materials to reduce evaporation losses (Li and
Zhang, 1999; Deng et al., 2003; Qiao et al., 2006) and reduce salt
build-up in the soil (Pang et al., in press).
Mulching, out of all the above-mentioned soil and water man-
agement approaches has potential to enhance soil quality over the
long-term, as well as increase production. Crop residues placed
on the soil surface shade the soil, serve as a water vapor bar-
rier against evaporation losses, slow surface runoff, and increase
infiltration (Mulumba and Lal, 2008). Studies have demonstrated
that returning crop residues to the soil improves soil quality and
productivity through favorable effects on building soil organic car-
bon (Havlin et al., 1990; Lal and Stewart, 1995). Duiker and Lal
(1999) reported a positive linear effect of mulch application rate
on soil organic carbon thereby increasing carbon storage in the
soil.
Conservation of soil moisture is another major advantage
of mulch-based farming systems. Ji and Unger (2001) reported
increases in soil moisture storage by using straw mulch. Based on
the observations from the North China Plain and Loess Plateau,
Deng et al. (2006) reported that mulching with crop residues
improved water-use efficiency by 10–20% as a result of reduced
soil evaporation and increased plant transpiration. In the case
of winter wheat, straw mulching has been shown to increase
water-use efficiency from 1.72 to 1.94 kg m−3 . Similarly, water-
Fig. 1. Three-year (2005–2007) average decadal rainfall and reference evapotran-
spiration (ETo) for the region where the study was undertaken.
use efficiency of maize increased from 1.55 to 1.84 kg m−3 .
Research in southern Italy on mulching (Rinaldi et al., 2000)
revealed that durum wheat straw, left on the soil after harvest
in June, increased soil water storage for the subsequent horti-
cultural crops sown in August–September. Zhang et al. (2009)
suggested that mulching was a promising soil management
practice that can increase soil water storage especially in arid
regions.
Despite beneficial effects of mulching under water-limited envi-
ronments, there is a paucity of information on the effects of
mulching on soil quality and crop productivity when saline water
is used as an irrigation source. Based on our literature search, few
mulching studies have addressed soil salinity dynamics (Deng et
al., 2003; Qiao et al., 2006; Pang et al., in press), while no mulching
study has addressed soil sodicity dynamics and water productivity
of cotton. Such information is necessary in the context of manag-
ing soil and water quality, sustainability of agricultural ecosystems,
climate change, decreasing allocations of freshwater to agriculture,
and increasing use of saline water in agriculture. Considering the
important role of mulching in improving soil quality in non-saline
environments, and the inevitable increase in saline water irrigation
in dry areas, a 3-year field study was undertaken in the Syr-Darya
River Basin of Uzbekistan to evaluate the effects of wheat straw
mulching and different levels of irrigation water salinity on soil
salinity and sodicity, cotton yield, and crop water productivity.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and site characterization
The study was undertaken from 2005 to 2007 in the Syr-Darya
River Basin, Uzbekistan. Cotton is the main summer crop grown in
the basin covering almost 90% of the cropped area. Pre-experiment
site characterization was completed in May 2005. Based on the
World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB,
2007), the experimental site was classified as Solonchak (Eddy
De-Pauw, personal communication, 2010). The site had a smooth
landscape with slopes from 0.0020 to 0.0035. The soils are loamy
(loam and silt loam) in texture with about 1% organic matter in the
surface 0.3 m layer. Long-term annual precipitation ranges from
100 to 300 mm, with 90% occurring during October through May.
The area has high summer temperatures (26–30 ◦ C during June,
July and August). During the winter temperatures drop to as low
as −6 ◦ C, with an average of 2 ◦ C. Owing to high summer temper-
atures and low rainfall, evaporation exceeds precipitation during
the cotton-growing period (Fig. 1). This necessitates the use of irri-
gation to support crop growth.
 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102
2.2. Treatments
The experimental design was based on two factors, namely
water quality and mulching.
The water quality treatments consisted of irrigation with mod-
erately saline water (2600 ± 200 mg L−1 ; 4.0 ± 0.3 dS m−1 ), highly
saline water (5300 ± 400 mg L−1 ; 8.3 ± 0.6 dS m−1 ) and their blend-
ing in equal volumes. These treatments were applied with or
without mulching of alternate irrigation furrows. With cotton as
the test crop, the following six treatment combinations were imple-
mented.
1 MSW: Irrigation with moderately saline water
(2600 ± 200 mg L−1 ; 4.0 ± 0.3 dS m−1 ).
2 MSW:HSW: Irrigation with a mix of moderately saline
water (2600 ± 200 mg L−1 ; 4.0 ± 0.3 dS m−1 ) and highly saline
water (5300 ± 400 mg L−1 ; 8.3 ± 0.6 dS m−1 ) in the ratio of 1:1
(3950 ± 300 mg L−1 ; 6.2 ± 0.5 dS m−1 ).
3 HSW: Irrigation with highly saline water (5300 ± 400 mg L−1 ;
8.3 ± 0.6 dS m−1 ).
4 MSW + M: Irrigation same as in treatment 1 (MSW) + mulching of
alternate irrigation furrows at 1.5 t ha−1 .
5 MSW:HSW + M: Irrigation same as in treatment 2
(MSW:HSW) + mulching of alternate irrigation furrows at
1.5 t ha−1 .
6 HSW + M: Irrigation same as in treatment 3 (HSW) + mulching of
alternate irrigation furrows at 1.5 t ha−1 .
The experimental layout consisted of a randomized complete
block design with three replications. The total number of experi-
mental plots was 18 (2 mulching levels × 3 water quality levels × 3
replications). Each plot was 360 m2 with gross experimental area
of approximately 0.8 ha including the water channels and non-
experimental buffer belts.
2.3. Soil and water sampling and analysis
After the establishment of the plots and before sowing cotton
(initial soil condition before the implementation of the treatments),
composite soil samples were collected from each experimental
plot at the following four depths: 0–0.15, 0.15–0.30, 0.30–0.60,
and 0.60–0.90 m. Similarly, soil sampling was undertaken after
harvest of cotton in each cropping year. The collected sam-
ples were processed (air-dried, ground to pass a 2-mm sieve,
and mixed thoroughly) before the following soil analyses were
undertaken: saturation paste pH (pHs ); electrical conductiv-
ity of saturation paste extract (ECe ); concentrations of soluble
calcium (Ca2+ ) + magnesium (Mg2+ ) by titration with standard
ethylenediaminetetracetate (EDTA) solution; sodium (Na+ ) by
flame photometry; carbonate (CO3 2− ) and bicarbonate (HCO3 − )
by titration with sulfuric acid; chloride (Cl− ) by titration with
silver nitrate (AgNO3 ), and sulfate (SO4 2− ) by precipitation as bar-
ium sulfate (BaSO4 ). All methods used were as described by U.S.
Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954). Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) was
calculated using concentrations of Na+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ from the
saturation paste extract.
In order to determine water quality, irrigation and groundwater
samples were collected on a monthly basis. Water samples were
analyzed for the following parameters: pH, EC, cations (Ca2+ , Mg2+ ,
Na+ , and K+ ) and anions (CO3 2− , HCO3 − , Cl− , and SO4 2− ) using the
methods described previously for soil saturation paste extract.
2.4. Agronomic procedures
The experimental field was plowed to a depth of 0.3 m with
a tractor in February 2005. Chiseling was undertaken in mid
97
Table 1
Water application (irrigation + rainfall) to different treatments (m3 ha−1 ).
Year Mulching Without mulching
MSW MSW:HSW HSW MSW MSW:HSW HSW
2005 1862 1934 1866 1992 2005 1866
2006 3412 3439 3449 3338 3446 3407
2007 2668 2671 2699 2809 2707 2699
Rainfall in 2005 cotton season = 27 mm (270 m3 ha−1 ).
Rainfall in 2006 cotton season = 15 mm (150 m3 ha−1 ).
Rainfall in 2007 cotton season = 48 mm (480 m3 ha−1 ).
April at about 0.1 m depth to breakup stubble. This was fol-
lowed by harrowing with a tractor. The cotton variety Bayaut-2
was sown by seeder (Romanian Seeder SPC-3.6) on 20 April at
a seeding rate of 25 kg ha−1 . Nitrogen (N) as ammonium nitrate
(NH4 NO3 ) was applied in two splits: 34 N ha−1 in first week
of May and 68 kg N ha−1 in the last week of May. Phosphorous
(P) in the form of super phosphate was applied at 75 kg P ha−1
in split applications: 50 kg P ha−1 at the time of harrowing and
25 kg P ha−1 before flowering in last week of June. Potassium
(K) was applied once at the rate of 50 kg K ha−1 along with
second split application of P before flowering in last week of
June.
Winter wheat straw, collected from a nearby farm, was used as
the mulching material. It was applied manually to alternate irriga-
tion furrows in the experimental plots under mulching treatments
at the rate of 1.5 t ha−1 . Cultural practices for cotton cultiva-
tion were the same in all plots and in accordance with the
prevalent system of agriculture in the region. In late September
the crop was harvested from each plot to determine the cot-
ton yield on plot basis, which was subsequently calculated on
per ha basis. In the subsequent years (2006 and 2007), all the
agronomic and fertilizer management practices were the same
except that land leveling was undertaken in mid April, sowing of
cotton was completed in late April, and harvesting in mid Octo-
ber.
2.5. Irrigation application
Irrigations were applied to experimental plots to maintain the
soil moisture content at 70% of field capacity. The total irriga-
tion volume applied to each treatment plus rainfall is given in
Table 1. The first irrigation in the 2005 cotton season was applied
on 7 July; it ranged from 873 to 927 m3 ha−1 . The second irriga-
tion (690–820 m3 ha−1 ) was applied on 9 August. The total amount
of irrigation was estimated to be between 1597 and 1740 m3 ha−1 .
Rainfall during 2005 cotton season was estimated to be 27 mm, i.e.
270 m3 ha−1 .
The second year (2006) was relatively dry with only 15 mm rain-
fall received during the cotton-growing season, which necessitated
greater amounts of water to be used for irrigation. Two irriga-
tions in May and June were applied to facilitate germination and
early growth of the crop. The first irrigation (684–714 m3 ha−1 ) was
applied on 13 May, which was followed by the 570–580 m3 ha−1
irrigation on 6 June. Third irrigation (1050–1108 m3 ha−1 ) was
applied on 6 July, which was followed by a fourth irrigation
(854–950 m3 ha−1 ) on 3 August. The total irrigation volume was
estimated in the range of 3188–3299 m3 ha−1 . In the third year
(2007) the highest amount of rainfall (48 mm) was recorded. In this
year, first irrigation (1128–1156 m3 ha−1 ) was applied on 8 July,
which was followed by the 1046–1185 m3 ha−1 second irrigation
on 12 August. The total irrigation was estimated in the range of
2190–2330 m3 ha−1 .
98 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102

Table 2
Chemical characteristics of the pre-experimental soil.

Soil characteristic Unit Soil depth (m)

0.0–0.15 0.15–0.30 0.30–0.60 0.60–0.90

ECe dS m−1 13.9 16.0 18.1 20.1

Soluble Ca2+ mmolc L−1 88.3 104.4 124.2 139.0
Soluble Mg2+ mmolc L−1 25.8 29.1 32.8 35.6
Soluble Na+ mmolc L−1 23.7 25.6 23.3 25.9
Soluble K+ mmolc L−1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6
Soluble HCO3 2− mmolc L−1 5.1 4.5 3.9 3.5
Soluble Cl− mmolc L−1 18.2 17.3 17.0 17.8
Soluble SO4 2− mmolc L−1 115.7 139.0 161.5 179.5
Mg2+ :Ca2+ – 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.26
Cl− :SO4 2− – 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.10
SAR – 3.13 3.14 2.63 2.77

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Pre-experiment soil characteristics
Pre-experiment soil salinity levels in terms of electrical con-
ductivity (ECe ) at the different depths were in the range of
13.9–20.1 dS m−1 (Table 2) with the concentrations of soluble salts
gradually increasing with soil depth. Among the anions, SO4 2− was
dominant having concentration of 115.7 mmolc L−1 in the upper
0.15 m depth. Similar to the soluble salt distribution in the soil
profile, SO4 2− concentration increased from surface to deeper hori-
zons. At the 0.6–0.9 m depth, it was 179.5 mmolc L−1 . Compared
with SO4 2− , the concentration of Cl− was much less and ranged
between 17.0 and 18.2 mmolc L−1 throughout the soil profile. This

Fig. 2. Salinity levels expressed as ECe (dS m−1 ) in the top soil layer (0.15 m depth) and in the soil profile (0.90 m depth) as affected by different mulching and water quality
treatments over three years of cotton-growing period. Values are means of three replicates ± standard error.
 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102 99

Fig. 3. Sodicity levels expressed as sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) in the top soil layer (0.15 m depth) and in the soil profile (0.90 m depth) as affected by different mulching
and water quality treatments over three years of cotton-growing period. Values are means of three replicates ± standard error.

led to a wide Cl− :SO4 2− ratio (0.10–0.16). Carbonates were not
found in detectable concentrations, while HCO3 − concentrations
exhibited a decreasing trend with soil depth and ranged from
5.1 mmolc L−1 in the upper 0.15 m depth to 3.5 mmolc L−1 in the
0.6–0.9 m soil layer (Table 2).
Among the cations, Ca2+ was dominant in the soil surface
followed by Mg2+ , Na+ , and K+ (Table 2). It followed a pat-
tern similar to the dominant anion (SO4 2− ) as its concentration
increased from surface to deeper horizons, and ranged from 88.3 to
139.0 mmolc L−1 . The concentration of Mg2+ had a slightly increas-
ing trend with depth and ranged from 25.8 to 35.6 mmolc L−1 .
The ratio between Mg2+ and Ca2+ at all the soil depths remained
less than 0.3, indicating the dominance of Ca2+ throughout the
soil profile. Na+ concentration showed little variation (23.7–25. 9
mmolc L−1 ) over the sampling depths. K+ concentration remained
≤1.1 mmolc L−1 .
The dominance of Ca2+ and SO4 2− throughout the soil profile is
indicative of the presence of calcium sulfate (CaSO4 ) in the solution
phase. The presence of Ca2+ salts in soil solution assists in main-
taining soil structural stability and hydraulic conductivity into and
through the soil. The dominance of Ca2+ salts in solution reduces
the potential sodicity hazard. The SAR value of the saturated paste
extract was approximately 3 throughout the soil profile. Soils with
SAR values ≥13 are generally categorized as sodic or saline-sodic
(Soil Science Society of America, 2009), which are characterized
by destabilization of soil structure, deterioration of soil hydraulic
properties, and increased susceptibility to crusting, runoff, ero-
sion and aeration, and osmotic and specific ion effects on plants
(Sumner, 1993; Qadir and Schubert, 2002).
3.2. Mulching and water quality effects on soil salinity
Salinity determinations made after each harvest of cotton over
the years indicated an increase in ECe levels in the upper 0.15 m
soil depth in all treatments when compared to pre-experiment lev-
els (Fig. 2). While irrigation with waters of different salinity levels
caused an increase in ECe in the top soils, the relative increase in
salinity of upper 0.15 m soil in the 2005 cotton season post-harvest
samples showed somewhat inconsistent trend in the case of highly
saline water treatments. The salinity level in the highly saline water
mulching treatment was greater than the respective non-mulching
treatment. However, after the first year of the stabilization period,
the treatment response was consistent in all the irrigation water
salinity treatments, i.e. increase in soil salinity was significantly
greater in the non-mulching treatments than mulching treatments.
100 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102

In the MSW treatment, the increase in salinity after cotton har- Table 3
Cotton yield (kg ha−1 ) as affected by mulching and irrigation water quality treat-
vesting in 2007 was about 20% while there was negligible increase
ments applied to a saline soil (initial ECe = 13.9 dS m−1 ; SAR = 3.1).
in the corresponding mulching treatment (MSW + M). The respec-
tive increases in salinity levels in post-cotton 2007 soil for the Year Mulching Without mulching
MSW:HSW and MSW:HSW + M treatments were around 40% and MSW MSW:HSW HSW MSW MSW:HSW HSW
15% over the initial levels in the pre-experiment soil. The increases
2005 2213 a 1993 bc 1940 c 2130 ab 1970 c 1927 c
in salinity levels in the highly saline water irrigation treatments 2006 1783 a 1470 b 1327 bc 1467 b 1370 bc 1240 c
(HSW and HSW + M) were even larger in post-cotton salinity lev- 2007 2827 a 2597 b 2237 bc 2520 b 2407 bc 2120 c
els over time. The differences between the matching mulching Means followed by the same letter in a row do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
and non-mulching treatments were statistically significant. On the In 2005, LSD at p = 0.05 was 137; SE = 44; and SD = 63.
average, salinity was 20% higher in the non-mulching treatments In 2006, LSD at p = 0.05 was 194; SE = 63; and SD = 89.
compared with the mulching treatments in the upper 0.15 m depth, In 2007, LSD at p = 0.05 was 330; SE = 107; and SD = 151.
after three cotton seasons. The beneficial effects of mulching in the
surface soil can be explained through reducing water loss through
Irrigation with waters of different salinity levels caused an increase
evaporation as crop residues at the soil surface shaded the soil
in SAR of the top soils; however, the relative increase in sodicity of
(Huang et al., 2005) and served as a vapor barrier against moisture
upper 0.15 m soil in the mulching treatments was less than the
losses from the soil (Mulumba and Lal, 2008). Sauer et al. (1996)
non-mulching treatments.
found that the presence of crop residue on the surface reduced soil
With respect to the entire 0.9 m soil depth, the treatment effects
water evaporation by 34–50%. The increase in soil water reten-
in terms of sodicity changes in the post-cotton samples over time
tion (Feng, 1999) helped in decreasing salt accumulation in the
were not as large as in the case of the upper 0.15 soil depth
mulching treatments. Based on a field study, Deng et al. (2003)
(Fig. 3). There were small increases in SAR levels in post-cotton 2005
showed that maize straw mulching could retain rainwater, hin-
samples with non-significant differences between the matching
der runoff and evaporation of water, prevent soil from secondary
mulching and non-mulching treatments. In the case of the post-
salinization and promote leaching of salts by rainwater.
cotton 2006 evaluation, the increases in SAR of both the highly
The treatment effects in terms of salinity changes in the entire
saline water irrigation treatments (HSW and HSW + M) were sig-
0.9 m soil depth in the post-cotton samples in all years were not as
nificantly greater than other treatments. The post-cotton 2007
large as in the case of the upper 0.15 soil depth (Fig. 2). There was
SAR levels in the soil under the HSW and HSW + M treatments
negligible change in overall salinity of the 0.9 m soil depth in the
were almost double than that of the respective levels in the pre-
treatments where moderately saline water was used for irrigation
experiment soil. At the same sampling interval (post-cotton 2007),
(MSW and MSW + M) with no significant treatment differences. In
the differences in terms of respective increases in soil SAR lev-
the case of treatments where a mixture of moderately saline and
els for other mulching and non-mulching treatments (MSW and
high-saline water was used (MSW:HSW and MSW:HSW + M), the
MSW + M; and MSW:HSW and MSW:HSW + M) were statistically
treatment differences were not pronounced for the first two years
non-significant. The overall effects of these treatments in terms
(2005 and 2006). However, the differences were significant based
of relatively small changes in SAR levels compared to changes in
on the post-cotton 2007 samples, i.e. there was a negligible increase
salinity levels in both the mulching and non-mulching treatments
in soil salinity in case of MSW:HSW + M treatment compared to
are attributed to the fact that the pre-experimental soil SAR levels
about 15% increase in the MSW:HSW treatment. The differences
were low and the soil was saline, but non-sodic. Despite increases in
between the matching mulching and non-mulching treatments
soil sodicity for HSW treatments, SAR during the 3-year monitoring
with highly saline water irrigation (HSW and HSW + M) were small.
period remained within the typical sodicity indicator level, i.e. soil
These observations suggest that the short term beneficial effects of
SAR ≥ 13 that differentiates sodic soils from non-sodic soils (Soil
mulching in managing soil salinity are largely limited to the top soil,
Science Society of America, 2009). The presence of Ca2+ in excess
and take some years to translate similar benefits to the lower soils
of Na+ in the soil solution phase helped in keeping soil SAR within
depths. However, this can only be achieved under conditions where
these limits.
adequate drainage systems are in place to mitigate the potential
There is a lack of information on the effects of mulching on
rise in groundwater level and increase in soil salinity, especially
changes in soil sodicity while irrigating with saline water. Most
through the movement of salts from subsoil layers to the surface
studies addressing mulching interventions focused on improv-
soil.
ing water storage in soils under water-limited conditions and
understanding the relationships between crop yield and soil water
3.3. Mulching and water quality effects on soil sodicity
balance in order to develop better semiarid crop and water manage-
ment practices (Wiedenfeld, 2000; Rinaldi et al., 2000; Deng et al.,
The calculated values of SAR for soil samples collected after
2006; Zhang et al., 2009). Our results from this pilot study indicate
harvest of cotton in different years indicate an increase in SAR
that mulching may reduce SAR build-up in soils under saline water
of the upper 0.15 m soil depth in all treatments when compared
irrigation, contingent upon the availability of appropriate natural or
with the respective pre-experiment levels (Fig. 3). However, the
man-made drainage system. However, further research is required
relative increases in the mulching treatments were less than the
to assess optimum mulch rates and irrigation water salinity levels
non-mulching treatments. In the MSW treatment, SAR of upper
against increasing SAR levels.
0.15 m soil increased from 2.60 (pre-experiment level) to 5.26 after
cotton harvesting in 2007. In the case of the same water quality
irrigation with mulching of alternate furrows (MSW + M), SAR of 3.4. Cotton yield and water productivity
the same soil depth increased from 2.98 to 3.98; only one-third
of the increase observed in the MSW treatment. A similar pattern The yield of cotton variety Bayaut-2, grown over 3 years on
was observed in the MSW:HSW and MSW:HSW + M treatments, i.e. the experimental plots, was significantly affected by the applied
SAR levels 5.45 and 4.51, respectively, but the treatment differences treatments (Table 3). In 2005, the highest yield was harvested
were not statistically significant. For the HSW and HSW + M treat- from the plots where moderately saline water was used for
ments, the increases in sodicity levels were relatively larger and irrigation and mulching of alternate furrows was undertaken
statistically significant throughout the experimental period (Fig. 3). (MSW + M). The crop yield response to the treatments was:
 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102
Table 4
Crop water productivity (kg m−3 ) as affected by mulching and irrigation water qual-
ity treatments applied to a saline soil (initial ECe = 13.9 dS m−1 ; SAR = 3.1).
Year Mulching Without mulching
MSW MSW:HSW HSW MSW MSW:HSW HSW
2005 1.189 a 1.031 b 1.040 b 1.069 b 1.056 b 0.961 c
2006 0.523 a 0.427 b 0.385 bc 0.439 b 0.398 bc 0.364 c
2007 1.021 a 0.972 a 0.829 c 0.897 c 0.889 c 0.785 d
Means followed by the same letter in a row do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
In 2005, LSD at p = 0.05 was 0.0448; SE = 0.0139; and SD = 0.0197.
In 2006, LSD at p = 0.05 was 0.0302; SE = 0.0096; and SD = 0.0136.
In 2007, LSD at p = 0.05 was 0.0897; SE = 0.0285; and SD = 0.0403.
MSW + M > MSW > MSW:HSW + M > MSW:HSW > HSW + M > HSW.
Similar trends in terms of crop yield response to different treat-
ments were observed in the subsequent years. At the respective
irrigation water salinities imposed, mulching treatments per-
formed better than non-mulching treatments. Increasing the salt
concentration in irrigation water resulted in a correspondingly
decrease in yield, i.e. highest yield with moderately saline irrigation
water treatments and lowest with highly saline water treatments.
In general, the MSW + M yielded the highest cotton yield in all
years while the HSW treatment produced the lowest cotton yield.
The increase in cotton yield in the mulching treatments can be
attributed to reduction in water loss through evaporation from
soil surface, improvement in moisture storage (Sauer et al., 1996;
Huang et al., 2005; Mulumba and Lal, 2008), and better manage-
ment of soil salinity and sodicity within the effective root zone as
shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Calculated as cotton lint + seed produced per unit of water (irri-
gation + rainfall), crop water productivity was significantly affected
by mulching and water quality treatments (Table 4). The highest
crop water productivity values were consistently observed in the
MSW + M treatment in each year. In general, mulching treatments
performed better than respective non-mulching treatments at a
given irrigation water salinity. It is argued that the increased water
stored in soil as a consequence of soil mulching was used in the
transpiration process and contributed to the increase in crop water
productivity. In addition, salinity in the mulched plots was rela-
tively less than the non-mulched plots (Fig. 2), which caused less
osmotic stress on the crop and assisted in improving growth and
yield.
The cumulative effects of mulching and irrigation water qual-
ity treatments reveal a close relationship between crop yield and
crop water productivity (Fig. 4). The 3-year average cotton yield
in the MSW + M (2274 kg ha−1 ) was significantly higher than the
Fig. 4. Cumulative effects of mulching and water quality treatments on cotton yield
and water productivity based on 3-year data. For cotton yield data analyzed at
p = 0.05, the LSD value was 85; SE = 30; and SD = 42. For cotton water productivity
data analyzed at p = 0.05, the LSD value was 0.0319; SE = 0.0110; and SD = 0.0156.
101
respective non-mulching treatment, which yielded 2039 kg ha−1 ,
indicating an increase in crop yield of 235 kg ha−1 . In terms of
crop water productivity, MSW + M produced cotton at 0.911 kg m−3
compared to 0.802 kg m−3 for the MSW treatment. Although
the yield and crop water productivity decreased with increas-
ing levels of salts in irrigation water, similar trends in crop
response to respective mulching and non-mulching treatments
were observed. With each increase in irrigation water salinity, there
was a decrease in cotton yield of about 200 kg ha−1 , i.e. cotton
yields in MSW:HSW + M and HSW + M treatments were 2020 and
1834 kg ha−1 , respectively.
Based on a survey study from farmers’ managed fields with
conventional practices, the three-year (2005–2007) average cotton
yield was 1467 kg ha−1 with water used for irrigation estimated at
3297 m3 ha−1 (Jamoliddin Mirhoshimov, personal communication,
2009). Using these values, crop water productivity from farmers’
fields averages at 0.445 kg m−3 . A comparison of these estimates
with our results indicates that by using appropriate combinations
of water quality and mulching, cotton yield can be increased in
the range of 400–800 kg ha−1 and water productivity in the range
of 0.306–0.466 kg m−3 . This would mean that for each kg of cot-
ton produced, there could be water savings of 0.306–0.466 m3
(306–466 L) as a result of mulching, thereby conserving moisture
in the soil to be used in the crop production process. Therefore, in
addition to increase in crop yield, mulching of alternate furrows
decreases the amount of water used in the production process and
increases crop water productivity substantially. Such water savings
when translated to larger scales will have considerable importance
in the Central Asia region and in particular in Uzbekistan, which is
a major cotton exporter of the world.
4. Conclusions and perspectives
The results of this 3-year field experiment undertaken on a
silt loam, non-sodic, saline soil (ECe = 13.9 dS m−1 ; SAR = 3.1) have
demonstrated the beneficial effects of mulching alternate furrows
under saline water irrigation. In terms of implications on salt build-
up in the soil, the overall increase in salinity in the upper 0.15 m
soil depth under mulching treatments was significantly less than
the non-mulching treatments. On an average, there was a 20%
increase in the non-mulching treatments than the mulching treat-
ments in the upper soil depth. The treatment effects in terms of
salinity changes in the entire 0.9 m soil depth in the post-cotton
2007 samples were not as large as in the case of the upper soil
depth. Similar trends were observed in case of changes in soil SAR
in the top soil and across the soil profile. These observations sug-
gest that the beneficial effects of mulching in managing soil salinity
and sodicity during initial years are largely limited to the top soil,
which would take some years to translate similar benefits to the
lower soils depths.
Cotton yield and crop water productivity based on year-wise
data were significantly affected by mulching and water quality
treatments; mulching treatments performed better than respective
non-mulching treatments at a given irrigation water salinity. Com-
pared to the farmers’ managed fields with conventional practices
in the region where this study was undertaken, cotton yields were
400–800 kg ha−1 higher in the mulching treatments; the lower-
side increase (400 kg ha−1 ) from highly saline water irrigation
treatment (HSW + M) and the higher-side increase (800 kg ha−1 )
from moderately saline water irrigation treatment (MSW + M). It
is interesting to note that the farmers in the study area region
use moderately saline water or a combination of moderately saline
water and freshwater to irrigate cotton.
The results on crop water productivity revealed that by using
appropriate combinations of water quality and mulching, water
102 G.A. Bezborodov et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 95–102
productivity could be increased in the range of 0.31–0.47 kg m−3 .
This would mean that for each kg of cotton (lint + seed) produced,
there could be water savings of up to 0.5 m3 (500 L) as a result
of mulching alternate irrigation furrows. Therefore, in addition to
increases in crop yield, mulching of alternate furrows has potential
beneficial effects in terms of increasing crop water productivity
substantially. Such water savings when translated to larger scales
will have considerable importance in a region like Central Asia
where salt-induced water quality deterioration is widespread, and
in particular in Uzbekistan, which is a major cotton exporter of the
world.
Although our study did not evaluate different rates of mulching
and compared only non-mulching and mulching (1.5 t ha−1 ) treat-
ments, we hypothesize that wheat straw mulching at higher rates
would need less time to effectively manage soil salinity and sod-
icity along with anticipated higher yield and water productivity
of cotton. However, this would eventually end up in competition
with other uses of wheat straw such as animal feed. Compared
to the conventional mulching rates (8–10 t ha−1 ), the application
of wheat straw at lower rates such as used in the present study
(1.5 t ha−1 ) offers an opportunity to: (1) manage soil salinity and
sodicity gradually; (2) enhance cotton yield and water productiv-
ity than non-mulching; (3) free up 70–85% of wheat straw for other
uses; and (4) environmental benefits in terms of improvement in
soil quality and efficient use of the available water resources.
Acknowledgments
This publication is a part of the joint initiative of the Interna-
tional Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
and International Water Management Institute (IWMI) address-
ing the assessment and management of marginal-quality water
resources and salt-affected soils. The helpful comments of Dr. Deb-
orah Bossio (IWMI) and Dr. Fawzi Karajeh (ICARDA) on an earlier
version of this manuscript are highly appreciated.
We are grateful to the Asian Development Bank for provid-
ing financial support for this study under the Regional Technical
Assistance (RETA 6208) project entitled “Enabling communities in
the Aral Sea Basin to combat land and water resource degradation
through the creation of ‘Bright’ spots”.
References
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water quality for agriculture. In: Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 29 Rev. 1. FAO, Rome.
Bouwer, H., 2002. Integrated water management for the 21st century: problems and
solutions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 128, 193–202.
Dıaz, F.J., Grattan, S.R., 2009. Performance of tall wheatgrass (Thinopyrum ponticum,
cv. ‘Jose’) irrigated with saline-high boron drainage water: implications on rumi-
nant mineral nutrition. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131, 128–136.
Deng, L., Chen, M., Liu, Z., Shen, Q., Wang, H., Wang, J., 2003. Effects of different
ground covers on soil physical properties and crop growth on saline–alkaline
soil. Chinese Journal of Soil Science 34 (2), 93–97.
Deng, Xi-P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agricultural Water Management
80, 23–40.
Duiker, S.W., Lal, R., 1999. Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration
in a Luvisol in central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research 52, 73–81.
Feng, H.C., 1999. Effects of straw mulching on soil conditions and grain yield of
winter wheat. Chinese Bulletin of Soil Science 30 (4), 174–175.
Huang, Y.L., Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., Huang, Z.L., Gong, E., 2005. The wheat yields and
water-use efficiency in the Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects.
Agricultural Water Management 72 (3), 209–222.
Havlin, J.L., Kissel, D.E., Maddus, L.D., Claassen, M.M., Long, J.H., 1990. Crop rotation
and tillage effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 54, 448–452.
Hillel, D., Vlek, P., 2005. The sustainability of irrigation. Advances in Agronomy 87,
55–84.
IUSS Working Group WRB (International Union of Soil Science Working Group on
World Reference Base), 2007. World reference base for soil resources 2006 (first
update 2007). World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.
Ji, S., Unger, P.W., 2001. Soil water accumulation under different precipitation,
potential evaporation, and straw mulch conditions. Soil Science Society of Amer-
ica Journal 65, 442–448.
Lal, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), 1995. Soil Management: Experimental Basis for Sustain-
ability and Environmental Quality. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp.
1–9.
Li, X., Zhang, Z., 1999. Effect of straw mulching on soil water and salt movement.
Chinese Journal of Soil Science 30, 257–258.
Maas, E.V., Grattan, S.R., 1999. Crop yields as affected by salinity. In: Skaggs, R.W.,
van Schilfgaarde, J. (Eds.), Agricultural Drainage. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp.
55–108.
Minhas, P.S., 1996. Saline water management for irrigation in India. Agricultural
Water Management 30, 1–24.
Minhas, P.S., 1998. Crop production in saline soils. In: Tyagi, N.K., Minhas, P.S. (Eds.),
Agricultural Salinity Management in India. Central Soil Salinity Research Insti-
tute (CSSRI), Karnal, India, pp. 325–350.
Mulumba, L.N., Lal, R., 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties.
Soil and Tillage Research 98, 106–111.
Pang, H.-C., Li, Y.-Y., Yang, J.-S., Liang, Y.-S. Effect of brackish water irri-
gation and straw mulching on soil salinity and crop yields under
monsoonal climatic conditions. Agricultural Water Management, in press,
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.020.
Qadir, M., Schubert, S., 2002. Degradation processes and nutrient constraints in sodic
soils. Land Degradation and Development 13, 275–294.
Qadir, M., Oster, J.D., 2004. Crop and irrigation management strategies for saline-
sodic soils and waters aimed at environmentally sustainable agriculture. Science
of the Total Environment 323, 1–19.
Qadir, M., Sharma, B.R., Bruggeman, A., Choukr-Allah, R., Karajeh, F., 2007. Non-
conventional water resources and opportunities for water augmentation to
achieve food security in water scarce countries. Agricultural Water Management
87, 2–22.
Qadir, M., Noble, A.D., Qureshi, A.S., Gupta, R.K., Yuldashev, T., Karimov, A., 2009.
Salt-induced land and water degradation in the Aral Sea basin: a challenge to
sustainable agriculture in Central Asia. Natural Resources Forum 33, 134–149.
Qiao, H., Liu, X., Li, W., Huang, W., Li, C., Li, Z., 2006. Effect of deep straw mulching on
soil water and salt movement and wheat growth. Chinese Journal of Soil Science
37 (5), 885–889.
Rhoades, J.D., 1989. Intercepting, isolating and reusing drainage waters for irrigation
to conserve water and protect water quality. Agricultural Water Management
16, 37–52.
Rhoades, J.D., Kandiah, A., Mashali, A.M., 1992. The use of saline waters for crop
production. In: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 48. FAO, Rome.
Rhoades, J.D., 1999. Use of saline drainage water for irrigation. In: Skaggs, R.W.,
van Schilfgaarde, J. (Eds.), Agricultural Drainage. American Society of Agronomy
(ASA)–Crop Science Society of America (CSSA)–Soil Science Society of America
(SSSA), Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 615–657.
Rinaldi, M., Rana, G., Introna, M., 2000. Effects of partial cover of durum wheat straw
on soil evaporation in a semi-arid region. Acta Horticulturae 537, 159–165.
Sauer, T.J., Hatfield, J.L., Prueger, J.H., 1996. Corn residue age and placement effects
on evaporation and thermal regime. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60,
1558–1564.
Sharma, B.R., Minhas, P.S., 2005. Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sus-
tainable agricultural production in South Asia. Agricultural Water Management
78, 136–151.
Soil Science Society of America, 2009. Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Available at:
https://www.soils.org/sssagloss/.
Sumner, M.E., 1993. Sodic soils: new perspectives. Australian Journal of Soil Research
31, 683–750.
Tanji, K., Kielen, N.C., 2002. Agricultural drainage water management in arid and
semi-arid areas. In: Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 61. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Thomas, R.J., 2008. Opportunities to reduce the vulnerability of dryland farmers in
Central and West Asia and North Africa to climate change. Agriculture, Ecosys-
tems and Environment 126, 36–45.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural
sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali
Soils. USDA Handbook No. 60, U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington.
Vyshpolsky, F., Mukhamedjanov, K., Bekbaev, U., Ibatullin, S., Yuldashev, T., Noble,
A.D., Mirzabaev, A., Aw-Hassan, A., Qadir, M. Optimizing the rate and timing
of phosphogypsum application to magnesium-affected soil for crop yield and
water productivity enhancement. Agricultural Water Management, in press,
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.02.020.
Wiedenfeld, R.P., 2000. Water stress during different sugarcane growth periods on
yield and response to N fertilization. Agricultural Water Management 43 (2),
173–182.
Zhang, S., Lövdahl, L., Grip, H., Tong, Y., Yang, X., Wang, Q., 2009. Effects of mulching
and catch cropping on soil temperature, soil moisture, and wheat yield on the
loess Plateau of China. Soil and Tillage Research 102, 78–86.