See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304570796

Feasibility study of irrigation agriculture, Metahara, Awash Valley, Ethiopia

Research · June 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2935.4482

CITATIONS READS

0 2,322

1 author:

Kjell Bjorgen Esser

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)
23 PUBLICATIONS   319 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Distribution of minerals and chemical elements in soils View project

Wastewater remediation using constructed wetlands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kjell Bjorgen Esser on 29 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Feasibility study of irrigation agriculture,
Metahara, Awash Valley, Ethiopia

Kjell B. Esser

Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric

in collaboration with
CARE

November 1995
 1

Background

Two small communities in the Awash Valley, Ethiopia, have started the preparation of an
irrigation project along the Awash River. They have been assisted by Oromo Development
Association in organizational matters but lack technical assistance. The communities are
uncertain about the environmental and economic consequences of their plans. Thus, they have
requested assistance from CARE to do a feasibility study.

The area in question is located between Metahara Sugar Plantation, Awash National Park,
Awash River, and railroad tracks.

The feasibility study consists of three parts:

1. Analysis of ecological and sociological conditions.
1.1. Ecology. Soil analyses to evaluate the chances for salt accumulation, erosion, etc. Assess
possible effects on groundwater. Assess possible effects on wildlife.
1.2. Sociology. Assessment of possible effects on the grazing patterns of the pastoralists,
changes in work patterns, relocation of villages, health consequences (malaria, bilharzia,
etc.).
2. Prepare a cost/benefit analysis for the irrigation project.
3. Develop plans for the use of appropriate technology, cultivation alternatives for small fields,
production of fodder, cash crops, etc.

Limitation of scope
The present contribution is limited to options and constraints of the natural system of soil and
water stated under item 1.1 Ecology above. The study is limited in time to one week in the field
and up to one week of analysis, data evaluation, and presentation.

Terms of Reference
1. Review the proposed irrigation project in relation to the Awash River Basin Integrated
Development Master Plan (Ethiopian Valley Development Studies Authority) if available.
2. Evaluate the land capability of the area.
3. Evaluate the soil and water quality with respect to possibilities for salinization, boron toxicity,
and aggregate dispersion.
4. Evaluate the drainage conditions.
5. Evaluate the erosion hazard.
6. Estimate water requirement.
7. Evaluate possible effects on groundwater quality
8. Based on item 1-7, evaluate the biophysical feasibility of the proposed irrigation scheme.
 2

Institutions consulted
Metahara Sugar Plantation (Director General and Research Director)
Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Office
Oromo Development Association
CARE, Ethiopia
CARE, Awash

Results
Boundaries, slopes and vegetation
The area in question (Fig. 1) consists of a near horizontal surface gently sloping towards
southeast in the northwestern area, towards southwest in the northeastern area, and towards south
in the southeastern area. Bushland dominates in the west and east while the central parts consist
of an open plain. The bushland and plain have generally poor vegetational ground cover partly
due to the soil conditions and partly due to grazing and trampling. The banks of the Awash
River are forested. A former floodplain is located in the central part of the area. It was
seasonally inundated before the Koka Dam was constructed (near Nazret).
For a practical purpose, the area under investigation was divided into 22 squares measuring
800 x 800 m (64 ha). The squares have been identified by columns from A to F and rows from 1
to 6.
 3

Vegetation and boundaries

Scale: 1:28 000
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1
Railroad

ary
ark bound
Shrub

A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2

Approx. p
Open plain
Shrub

Boundary of Metahara Sugar Plantation D3 E3 F3

N
D4 E4 F4
Prev.
flood-
plain
Shrub
Metahara Sugar Plantation D5 E5 F5
Open plain

C6 Forest
Squares: Awash River
800 m

64 ha

800 m

Fig. 1. Vegetation, area boundaries, and grid of squares designed for the present investigation.
 4

Data available
In connection with the planning of the present Metahara Sugar Plantation, a soil survey was
conducted in 1965 including the area of present interest. By courtesy of the Director General of
the plantation, we were allowed to copy the relevant parts of their soils map showing areas of
differing soil suitability (Fig. 2). Unfortunately, the basis for the soil suitability classes were not
specified on their map. We assume, however, that soil salinity is a major criteria along with soil
depth. We also assume that the suitability classes include the salinity status of both the topsoil
and the subsoil which may differ considerably. In addition, classes of alkalinity (pH) are
delineated (Fig. 3). The suitability classes are related to sugarcane and sisal. Sugarcane is as
sensitive to salinity as maize. They rank about average among field crops. Sisal is more salinity
tolerant. Vegetables are generally somewhat more sensitive than maize and sugarcane.
Around 1977, the sugar plantation was expanded to areas north of Awash River where the
soils were classified as suitable for sugarcane. Marginal and unsuitable areas were left, which
coincides with the area presently under investigation.
The far western area (squares A1 and A2 on Fig. 2) have too shallow soils for cropping (data
not shown in Fig. 2). The central parts are unsuitable due to salinity (we presume) as well as
alkalinity. The northeastern parts are suitable in terms of chemical composition of the soil, but
unsuitable for gravity fed irrigation due to slightly higher elevation than the irrigation channels.
The southeastern parts are unfavorable for cropping due to sandy to gravely texture and patches
of surfaces boulders. Favorable areas are found within the squares C6 and E5. The area along
the river is, however, the only land with a relatively dense forest vegetation including several
plant species.
The parent material of the soils in the area is largely a sediment predominantly in the silt
fraction and to a lesser extent a gravely outwash from the Fantale mountain. The chemistry and
mineralogy of the soils are influenced by the basaltic rocks in the area.
The groundwater in the area has generally relatively high salt concentrations and has notably
high fluoride content. The Awash River is of good quality for irrigation.
 5

Soil suitability
Scale: 1:28 000 (1965-data)
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1
2/
5/ 1/
no data
3/

A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2
1/ 5/ 4/ 1/
3/

Boundary of Metahara Sugar Plantation D3 E3 F3

2D/
4/
5/

D4 E4 F4
3/
4/
3/ 4/
Metahara Sugar Plantation
5/

D5 E5 F5
3/ 1/
4/
1/

C6
1/
Awash River

Soil Survey 1965 (simplified map, presumably based on soil salinity):

1/ Suitable for sugarcane and sisal
2/ Marginal for sugarcane and suitable for sisal
3/ Marginal I for sisal
4/ Marginal II for sisal
5/ Marginal III for sisal

2D/ Soils 60 - 100 cm; marginal for sugarcane,

suitable for sisal

Surface boulders

Fig. 2. Soil suitability as depicted by the soil survey by Metahara Sugar Plantation in 1965.
 6

Alkalinity (pH)
Scale: 1:28 000 (1965-data)
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1

no data

A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2

Boundary of Metahara Sugar Plantation D3 E3 F3

D4 E4 F4

Metahara Sugar Plantation

D5 E5 F5

C6

Awash River

Soil Survey 1965:

/1 pH < 9.0 in top and subsoil
/2 pH > 9.0 in subsoil
/3 pH > 9.0 in top and subsoil

Fig. 3. Soil alkalinity (pH) as depicted by the soil survey by Metahara Sugar Plantation in 1965.
 7

Present investigation
Given the time constraints, we did not find an opportunity to evaluate the proposed project in
relation to the government's plan for the Awash River Basin.
The soils in the area consist primarily of a silty to sandy water deposited sediment with some
weathered, gravely outwash sediment in the southeastern sections. The former flood plain has a
clayey texture. Most of the soils were rather compact below about 40 cm depth and difficult to
hand auger. The compacted subsoil may suggest poor drainage, although we observed no
mottling. We believe, therefore, that there may be reasonable drainage through cracks, at least
early in the rainy season. The high sodium content that our analysis shows, suggests however,
impeded drainage for most of the area.
The salinity patterns shown in Fig. 2. is most likely a result of micro and macro topography
and resulting groundwater movements. Rainwater from Fantale Mountain dissolves minerals of
the easily weatherable basaltic rock on its way towards the valley bottom. The groundwater
stands at least seasonally higher in the depressions close to the valley bottom, like the area
represented by the squares B1, B2, C1, C2, D3, D4, and D5, resulting in salt accumulation.

Soils studies
Despite the generally unfavorable conditions for crop production presented by the soil survey
from 1965, we felt that it would be worthwhile to collect some soil samples for chemical analysis
to verify the conditions presented by Fig. 2 and 3 and to provide a basis to estimate the potential
for reclamation. Financial and time constrains led us to take only one sample of the topsoil (0-15
cm) and one from the subsoil (50-60 cm) from each of the 22 squares. We collected the topsoil
samples within a radius of about 20 m in the center of each squares. The topsoil samples were
collected as composites of three subsamples representing the vegetation types surrounding the
locality. The subsoil samples were taken from one bore hole on each square. Subsoil samples
were not taken from A1 and A2 due to shallow soil.
The soil samples were delivered to the National Soil Service Project, Ministry of Agriculture,
Addis Ababa, and analyzed for electrical conductivity (salt concentration), pH, and sodium,
potassium, calcium and magnesium concentration. Electrical conductivity and cations were
determined in saturation extract, and pH was determined in a 1:2.5 soil:water mixture. Expenses
for analysis will be covered by Noragric.

Results
The soils are not very saline. Only D5, E4, and F4 have electrical conductivity above 4.0 in
the topsoil. Seven of the 22 subsoil samples have, however, high salt concentration. This
condition would lead to restricted root development for most crops.
The main obstacle to crop production is the high sodium concentration compared to calcium
and magnesium. This situation causes several unfavorable conditions for plant growth, directly
or indirectly:
 8

1. High pH (above 8.4)

- reduces uptake of micronutrients (Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe)
2. Low uptake of Ca and Mg
3. Poor tilth of the soil
- low permeability when wet
- temporary surface waterlogging
- loss of nitrogen
- crusted when dry
- restricted germination of seedlings
4. Low organic matter content
- low nitrogen supply
- poor soil structure
Twelve of the 22 sample sites have estimated ESP1 of the topsoil above the commonly used
boundary value of 15 %. The sites A1, E4, F4, and F5 have ESP above 40 (Table 1). Ten of the
22 squares have subsoils with ESP above 15 %, 9 of which are 40 or higher. Such subsoils will
not accommodate for root growth of crops. For reference, tolerance of crops to salinity (EC) and
sodicity (ESP) are shown in Appendix 2 and 3, respectively.
Our analysis shows somewhat lower pH than the soil survey of 1965 for some of the sample
sites (Fig. 3). Values for pH of 8.2-8.3 for squares D1, E1, F1, E2, F2, and F3 correspond well
with ESP < 15 %. In a chemical perspective, these squares, possibly also including E3, should
be suitable for cropping. Much of this area is, however, located at a slightly higher elevation
such that gravity fed irrigation from the channel system of the sugar plantation is not possible.
Pumping of water from the river south of the area in question by the use of wind power could be
worthwhile looking into. Average wind speed in Awash is shown in Appendix 4. The investi-
gated site at F1 is sandy and has an uneven topography which makes it less suitable for irrigation
agriculture. The site at F3 is also sandy to gravely and unfit for irrigation. The area near Awash
River that is suitable for irrigation (C6 and E5) coincides to a large extent with the forested area
along the river. Converting the relatively small forested land into agricultural fields is, maybe,
not desirable from an environmental point of view considering its importance as a wildlife
habitate and river bank control. In Fig. 4, we have thus indicated squares D1, E1, E2, F2, and E3
as potentially suitable for irrigation agriculture assuming that water can be conveyed to these
areas.

1 ESP is the Exchangeble Sodium Percentage. We have estimated ESP using the formula
100 (−0. 0126 + 0.01475 SAR)
ESP =
1 + (−0. 0126 + 0.01475 SAR)
where SAR (Sodium Adsorption Ratio) is calculated from the soil analyses by the formula
SAR =
[Na +]
[Ca2+ ] + [ Mg2 +]
2
 9

Table 1. Soil analysis data (1995).

Sample Depth pH EC2 Na K Ca Mg ESP3
cm (H2O) dS/m me/l me/l me/l me/l %
A1/1 0-15 9.7 0.89 25.90 1.34 0.45 0.07 42.4
A1/2 bedrock - - - - - -
A2/1 0-15 8.4 0.44 0.66 1.24 3.23 0.33 -0.5
A2/2 bedrock - - - - - -
B1/1 0-15 8.0 0.61 13.80 0.16 0.57 0.13 26.9
B1/2 50-60 10.4 13.20 318.00 0.79 0.04 0.04 97.1
B2/1 0-15 9.0 0.78 16.20 0.12 0.39 0.15 34.6
B2/2 50-60 10.2 14.00 321.00 0.79 0.04 0.77 97.1
C1/1 0-15 7.7 0.32 5.51 0.17 0.49 0.13 11.8
C1/2 50-60 9.6 5.60 121.00 0.94 0.36 0.18 77.4
C2/1 0-15 9.0 1.60 38.90 0.18 0.83 0.11 45.2
C2/2 50-60 9.6 10.00 227.00 0.59 0.48 0.23 84.9
C6/1 0-15 7.9 0.40 1.15 1.09 2.42 0.39 0.2
C6/2 50-60 8.4 0.42 3.40 1.09 2.03 0.40 3.2
D1/1 0-15 8.2 0.86 4.86 0.99 4.46 0.62 3.1
D1/2 50-60 8.5 1.85 34.00 0.74 3.30 0.72 25.4
D2/1 0-15 8.9 0.72 13.30 0.22 1.11 0.14 19.1
D2/2 50-60 9.7 1.39 35.70 0.20 0.68 0.17 44.3
D3/1 0-15 9.3 0.62 13.60 0.09 0.38 0.10 28.4
D3/2 50-60 10.4 5.37 122.00 0.11 0.17 0.10 83.0
D4/1 0-15 9.2 0.46 11.20 0.11 0.51 0.21 20.8
D4/2 50-60 9.3 1.13 27.50 0.07 0.63 0.09 39.9
D5/1 0-15 9.9 4.14 97.20 0.12 0.12 0.07 82.3
D5/2 50-60 8.5 0.26 0.49 1.14 1.53 0.28 -0.5
E1/1 0-15 8.3 0.21 1.02 0.11 1.08 0.22 0.6
E1/2 50-60 8.2 0.29 4.70 0.69 1.36 0.21 6.2
E2/1 0-15 9.1 0.68 12.80 0.17 0.33 0.09 28.5
E2/2 50-60 8.8 0.33 6.64 0.79 0.77 0.16 11.6
E3/1 0-15 8.3 0.43 1.04 0.06 2.94 0.48 -0.1
E3/2 50-60 9.0 0.97 13.60 1.88 2.27 0.25 14.2
E4/1 0-15 9.5 8.02 198.00 3.56 0.77 0.45 78.8
E4/2 50-60 8.4 0.39 5.02 0.11 1.53 0.17 6.3
E5/1 0-15 8.2 0.21 3.56 0.04 0.86 0.13 5.8
E5/2 50-60 8.3 0.23 0.58 0.21 1.33 0.24 -0.3
F1/1 0-15 8.3 0.59 0.81 0.06 3.08 0.59 -0.4
F1/2 50-60 8.2 0.93 3.24 1.14 4.42 1.17 1.6
F2/1 0-15 8.8 0.72 10.86 0.12 1.70 0.63 12.0
F2/2 50-60 8.5 0.34 0.75 0.20 2.15 0.24 -0.2
F3/1 0-15 8.5 0.88 10.10 0.08 2.56 0.70 9.4
F3/2 50-60 8.6 0.54 1.30 0.79 2.52 0.47 0.3
F4/1 0-15 8.6 4.46 89.10 0.08 1.94 0.91 52.1
F4/2 50-60 9.4 7.79 97.20 1.93 1.18 0.39 61.6
F5/1 0-15 9.5 1.74 45.40 0.54 0.33 0.09 59.2
F5/2 50-60 9.5 6.02 129.60 3.27 0.17 0.13 83.1

2 Electrical conductivity
3 Exchangeable sodium percentage
 10

Scale: 1:28 000

Soil Analyses 1995
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1
Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍
- ● ● ❍ ❍ ❍
Sodium ● Sodium ● Sodium ❍ Sodium ❍ Sodium ❍ Sodium ❍
- ● ● ● ❍ ❍

A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2
Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍ Salt ❍
- ● ● ❍ ❍ ❍
Sodium ❍ Sodium ● Sodium ● Sodium ● Sodium ● Sodium ❍
- ● ● ● ❍ ❍

D3 E3 F3
Boundary of Metahara Sugar Plantation ❍ ❍ ❍
Salt Salt Salt
● ❍ ❍
Sodium ● Sodium ❍ Sodium ❍
● ❍ ❍

D4 E4 F4
Salt ❍ Salt ● Salt ●
Metahara Sugar Plantation ❍ ❍ ●
Sodium ● Sodium ● Sodium ●
● ❍ ●

D5 E5 F5
Salt ● Salt ❍ Salt ❍
❍ ❍ ●
Sodium ● Sodium ❍ Sodium ●
Awash River ❍ ❍ ●

C6
Salt ❍
❍ Awash River
Sodium ❍
❍
Legend:

"Salt" = electrical conductivity (EC)

"Sodium" = exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)
Upper dot = topsoil (0-15 cm)
Lower dot = subsoil (50-60 cm)
❍ = value lower than boundary value (i.e., EC < 4.0 dS/m; ESP < 15 %)
● = value higher than boundary value (i.e., EC > 4.0 dS/m; ESP > 15 %)

= Potentially suitable for agriculture

Fig. 4. Analysis of salt concentration (electrical conductivity) and sodium (exchangeable sodium
percentage) for each square. Data from the present investigation (Table 1).
 11

The ground cover in the area is generally very sparse. Nevertheless, visible erosion is present
only in the generally sandy F-squares with exception of F2. Erosion should therefore not be a
major problem for development.
The development of irrigation agriculture in the squares D1, E1, E2, F2, and E3 may increase
the salinity/sodicity levels in the areas downstream from the irrigated area, i.e., D2, D3, and E4
unless a drainage channel is constructed to lead drainage water to the river.
The groundwater quality in the area is already poor and not in use. Irrigation should therefore
not have any negative effect in that respect.

Potential for reclamation

Salts in access of EC > 4.0 must be leached from the soils before cropping will be profitable.
This is not a major problem in this area. More serious is the sodium content. Sodium will have
to be replaced by calcium. This operation includes addition of a calcium salt (e.g., gypsum) and
subsequent leaching. This operation requires that the calcium source is plowed into the soil
followed by leaching of sodium. Considering the high sodium concentrations in the subsoil,
proper leaching may prove difficult unless drainage channels are constructed. There is also a
possibility that subsurface salts may move upwards by capillary forces during dry periods.
Reclamation of sodic soils is referred to in the literature as potentially expensive and difficult but
certainly not impossible. However, management of reclaimed, irrigated soils requires a great
deal of knowledge and skills which the potential farmers in the area presumably do not have.

Water requirement for irrigation

Using maize (140 days variety) as an example crop, the following water requirements will
apply to ensure less than 10 % yield reduction due to water stress and assuming all other growth
factors are optimal:

Month Effective rainfall (mm) Irrigation (mm) Irrigation (m3/ha)

July (planting) 91 20 200
Aug. 110 30 300
Sept. 55 50 500
Oct. 19 130 1 300
Nov. 18 10 100
Sum 293 240 2 400
 12

Recommendations
Based on the soil survey from 1965 and our own analyses, we do not recommend a general
development of irrigation agriculture in the area of investigation for production of vegetable,
fruit or field crops.
Areas close to the river and the squares D1, E1, E2, F2, and E3 may be developed for
irrigation. E3 is uncertain, however, since the soil survey from 1965 classified this area as
marginal II for sisal. Patches of land classified as marginal for sisal are also included in squares
E1, E2, and F2. A detailed study of these plots should be done before any development plan for
irrigation is made.
Water from the channels of the sugar plantation may reach parts of the specified area by
gravity. The extent of this area should be determined and an agreement for water delivery
should be made with the sugar plantation. Other areas need water pumped from either the sugar
plantation or the river.
The area not suitable for cropping due to high sodium content can probably be improved for
pasture by planting sodium tolerant bush and grass species. A consultant should be sought to
develop plans for pasture improvement.
 13

Appendix 1. Site descriptions

The squares from which samples were taken were numbered by columns from A to F and rows 1
to 6. Topsoil samples are denoted by /1 and subsoil samples by /2.

A1. Sparse vegetation of grass and Acacia, extensive areas of bedrock exposure, crest, slope N, E, and S. /1. Silt
loam. /2. Shallow soil, no sample taken.
A2. Open grass vegetation with some Acacia bushes, large areas with exposed bedrock, slope NW, E, and S. /1.
Sand with some stones. /2. Bedrock at 40 cm, no sample taken.
B1. Grass vegetation, slope E. /1. Granular structure, hard aggregates. /2. Granular, silty, firm aggregates.
B2. Grass tussocks with bare soil betweeen (typical for saline/sodic conditions), slope ESE. /1. silty, grainy
structure. /2. Granular structure after drilling, compact soil and difficult drilling, shiny glide planes.
C1. Shrub vegetation and small Acacia trees, slope E. /1. Silty , granular. /2. Compact soil, sandy, weathered
material with white spots of quartz.
C2. Open plain, sparse grass vegetation, extensive trampling by cattle, slope E. /1. Sandy to silty, granular, hard
aggregates. /2. Silty, compact soil.
C6. Forest, partly dense, big trees, near level. /1. Silty, organic rich, firm platy aggregates. /2. Silt, loose, easy to
drill.
D1. Shrub vegetation, sparse ground cover, near level, well-drained, deep soil,. /1. silty, medium firm aggragates.
/2. Silty, loose soil, drilling easy down to 160 cm.
D2. Shrub vegetation, Acacia, sparse ground cover, near horizontal surface, well-drained, deep soil. /1. Silty,
medium firm aggregates. /2. Silt loam, shiny glide surfaces, not compact.
D3. Open plain, border to previous flood plain, 50 % gras cover, slope SW. /1. Silty, crumbly, medium firm. /2.
Silty, light color.
D4. Previous flood plain, 100 % grac sover, scattered shrubs, slope SW. /1. Silty, medium to hard aggregates. /2.
Clay, moist.
D5. Open plain, 25 % ground cover, slope SE. /1. Sand-silt, weak aggregate. /2. Silt, weak fo firm aggregates.
E1. Medium dense shrub vegetation, sparse ground cover, near level, well-drained. /1 Silty, loose, medium firm
aggregates. /2. silt loam, sandy silt at 150 cm.
E2. Shrub - woodland, 75 % grass cover, near level surface. /1. loamy, weak to medium aggregates. /2. Clay
loam, fairly dark, shiny glide surface.
E3. Shrubs with scattered trees, 50 % grass cover, slope SSW. /1. Sand, loose. /2. Sandy loam, somewhat compact,
weakly shiny glide surface.
E4. Sparse shrubs, 100 m from border to open plain, 100 m from Kareju chief village, 50 % ground cover, slope
ESE. /1. Sandy loam, weak aggregates. /2. Loamy, compact soil, shiny glide surface.
E5. Open woodland, 100 % grass cover, slope SE. /1. Silty, medium to weak aggregates. /2. Silty, firm aggregates.
F1. Shrub vegetation, no grass/ground cover, somewhat uneven topography, seasonal stream erosion, excessively
drained, slope SSW. /1. Sand, weak aggregates. /2. Sandy loam.
F2. Shrub vegetation, no grass/ground cover, slope SSW. /1. Silty sand to loamy. /2. Weathered sand forming clay,
shiny glide surface, somewhat compact soil.
F3. Shrubs, 20 % grass cover, slope S. /1. Sand, weak aggreagates. /2. Sand, layer of gravel at 50 cm, silt and clay
underneath (which was sampled).
F4. Shrubs, 30 % grass cover, seasonal stream erosion, slope SE. /1. Sand, weak aggregates. /2. Thin layer of
gravel at 60 cm mixed with and and silt.
F5. Shrubs, 50 % ground cover, seasonal stream erosion, coarse sand on the surface, slope SSE. /1. Sand, sigle
grains. /2. Clayey gravel, weathering product.
 14

Appendix 2. Tolerance of some common crops to salinity (EC). Specified salinity level will
result in 50 % yield reduction. Increasing salt tolerance downward within each
group (source: FAO).

Vegetable crops
Low tolerance Medium tolerance High tolerance
(EC = 3-4 dS/m) (EC = 4-10 dS/m) (EC = 10-12 dS/m)
Green beans Cucumber Spinach
Celery Squash Aspargus
Radish Pea Kale
Onion Garden beet
Carrot
Potato
Sugar maize
Lettuce
Cauliflower
Bell pepper
Cabbage
Broccoli
Tomato

Field crops
Low tolerance Medium tolerance High tolerance
(EC = 4 dS/m) (EC = 6-10 dS/m) (EC = 10-16 dS/m)
Cassava Soybean Cotton
Sugar cane Castor bean Rape
Field beans Sunflower Sugar beet
Flax Barley
Maize
Sorghum
Rice
Oat
Wheat
Rye

Fruit crops
Low tolerance Medium tolerance High tolerance
(EC = 2-4 dS/m) (EC = 4-8 dS/m) (EC = 8 dS/m)
Avocado Cantaloupe Date
Lemon Grape
Strawberry Olive
Peach Fig
Apricot Pomegranate
Almond
Plum
Prune
Grapefruit
Orange
Apple
Pear
15
 16

Appendix 2. cont.

Forage crops
Low tolerance Medium tolerance High tolerance
(EC = 2-4 dS/m) (EC = 4-8 dS/m) (EC = 4-8 dS/m)
Burnet Sicle milkvetch Birdsfoot trefoil
Ladino clover Sourclover Barley (hay)
Red clover Cicer milkvetch Western wheatgrass
Alsike clover Smooth brome Canada wildrye
Meadow foxtail Big trefoil Fescue grass
White dutch clover Reed canary Rhodes grass
Meadow fescue Bermuda grass
Blue grama Nuttal alkali grass
Orchard grass Saltgrass
Oat (hay) Alkali sacaton
Wheat (hay)
Rye (hay)
Tall fescue
Alfalfa
Hubam clover
Sudan grass
Dallis grass
Strawberry clover
Mountain brome
Perennial ryegrass
Yellow sweetclover
White sweetclover
 17

Appendix 3. Sodicity levels (ESP) at which stunted growth occurs (crop failure) (source: FAO).

Extremely sensitive (ESP = 2-10 %)

Deciduous fruit trees,
Nut trees
Avocado
Cassava

Sensitive (ESP = 10-20 %)

Bean

Moderately tolerant (ESP = 20-40 %)

Clover
Oat
Tall fescue
Rice
Dallis grass

Tolerant (ESP = 40-60 %)

Wheat
Cotton
Alfalfa
Barley
Tomato
Beet

Most tolerant (ESP = >60 %)

Crested wheatgrass
Fairway wheatgrass
Tall wheatgrass
Rhodes grass
 18

Appendix 4. Avarage wind speed in Awash (source: FAO).

Wind
Month km/day
1 52
2 52
3 52
4 95
5 104
6 104
7 60
8 43
9 43
10 43
11 43
12 52

View publication stats