Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19

Review
Crop and irrigation management strategies for saline-sodic soils
and waters aimed at environmentally sustainable agriculture
M. Qadira,*, J.D. Osterb
a
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA

Received 28 March 2003; accepted 3 October 2003

Abstract

Irrigation has long played a key role in feeding the expanding world population and is expected to play a still
greater role in the future. As supplies of good-quality irrigation water are expected to decrease in several regions due
to increased municipal–industrial–agricultural competition, available freshwater supplies need to be used more
efficiently. In addition, reliance on the use and reuse of saline andyor sodic drainage waters, generated by irrigated
agriculture, seems inevitable for irrigation. The same applies to salt-affected soils, which occupy more than 20% of
the irrigated lands, and warrant attention for efficient, inexpensive and environmentally acceptable management.
Technologically and from a management perspective, a couple of strategies have shown the potential to improve crop
production under irrigated agriculture while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts. The first strategy,
vegetative bioremediation—a plant-assisted reclamation approach—relies on growing appropriate plant species that
can tolerate ambient soil salinity and sodicity levels during reclamation of salt-affected soils. A variety of plant
species of agricultural significance have been found to be effective in sustainable reclamation of calcareous and
moderately sodic and saline-sodic soils. The second strategy fosters dedicating soils to crop production systems where
saline andyor sodic waters predominate and their disposal options are limited. Production systems based on salt-
tolerant plant species using drainage waters may be sustainable with the potential of transforming such waters from
an environmental burden into an economic asset. Such a strategy would encourage the disposal of drainage waters
within the irrigated regions where they are generated rather than exporting these waters to other regions via discharge
into main irrigation canals, local streams, or rivers. Being economically and environmentally sustainable, these
strategies could be the key to future agricultural and economic growth and social wealth in regions where salt-
affected soils exist andyor where saline-sodic drainage waters are generated.
䊚 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Salt-tolerant plants; Phytomelioration; Marginal-quality waters; Drainage water reuse; Crop production systems

*Corresponding author. Tel.: q963-21-2213433; fax: q963-21-2213490.

E-mail address: m.qadir@cgiar.org (M. Qadir).

0048-9697/04/$ - see front matter 䊚 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.10.012
2 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
1. Introduction
Irrigation has ever been an important factor in
agricultural development. The area of land under
irrigation in the world has expanded substantially,
particularly in the second half of the last century.
Between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, expan-
sion of irrigation has accounted for more than 50%
increase in global food production (El-Ashry and
Duda, 1999). Although only approximately 17%
of the world’s cropland is irrigated, it produces
more than a third of the food and fiber harvested
throughout the world (Hillel, 2000). The expan-
sion in irrigated agriculture needs to continue as
the world population increases, but annual renew-
able freshwater resources for the foreseeable future
are now largely allocated. There may be some
areas where freshwater resources increase or
decrease according to rainfall changes due to
climate change, however, these are likely to occur
at the level that is small compared to the increased
future demands for freshwater (Wallace, 2000).
Competition for freshwater already exists among
the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors
in several regions due to an increase in population.
The consequence has been a decreased allocation
of freshwater to agriculture (Tilman et al., 2002).
This phenomenon is expected to continue and to
intensify in less developed, arid region countries
that already have high population growth rates and
suffer from serious environmental problems.
As supplies of good-quality irrigation water are
expected to decrease, available water supplies need
to be used more efficiently (Oweis et al., 1999;
Hatfield et al., 2001; Wichelns, 2002), where one
of the techniques can be the reuse of saline andy
or sodic drainage waters generated by irrigated
agriculture (Shalhevet, 1994; Rhoades, 1999;
Oster, 2000), or of marginal-quality waters gener-
ated by municipalities (Bond, 1998; Bouwer,
2002). The same applies to salt-affected soils,
which occupy more than 20% of the irrigated
lands (Ghassemi et al., 1995), and warrant atten-
tion for efficient, inexpensive and environmentally
acceptable reclamation and management to
improve crop production (Qadir and Oster, 2002).
If mismanaged, the use of such poorer quality
waters and soils can increase salinity and sodicity
problems, which already plague many irrigation
projects reducing crop yields.
A major problem with irrigated agriculture is its
negative environmental impacts. Irrigated agricul-
ture, over the long-term, cannot avoid causing
adverse off-site effects due to the drainage water
it generates (Van Schilfgaarde, 1994). The gener-
ation of drainage water by irrigation is a necessity
to maintain soil salinity, through leaching, at
acceptable levels for crop growth. However, it is
no longer sufficient to set leaching requirement
objectives based solely on irrigation water salinity
and crop salt tolerance. Nor is it sufficient to limit
the objectives of soil reclamation, or rehabilitation,
to reducing soil salinity and sodicity to levels that
permit high levels of crop productivity. The envi-
ronmental impacts of the drainage waters generated
by reclamation, rehabilitation and irrigation in
general must also be considered. What is the
disposal site for the drainage water, or more to the
point, the salt it contains? What will be the impact
on the chemical composition of the receiving
waters or soil strata? The key issues are: (1) What
can be done to minimize the volume of drainage
water? (2) Should the disposal of unusable drain-
age water be localized to the sub-regions where
these waters are generated. One strategy to deal
with such issues is to improve irrigation manage-
ment (Wichelns, 2002) so that excess water is not
applied over that needed for evapotranspiration
and leaching. Another is to reuse drainage waters
for irrigation of appropriate salt-tolerant crops
(Rhoades, 1999).
In the future, sustainable irrigation systems
using saline-sodic soils and waters have the poten-
tial to improve crop production with minimized
adverse environmental effects. This will require a
comprehensive approach to soil, water and crop
management. The foci will need to be on recla-
mation of new lands, rehabilitation of saline and
sodic lands generated by past irrigation practices,
improved productivity per unit of water, and envi-
ronmental protection. Crop and water management
will play key roles in such a comprehensive
approach, and are the foci of this review.
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
2. Vegetative bioremediation of sodic and saline-
sodic soils
Accumulation of salts and sodium (Naq) in
salt-affected soils originates either through the
weathering of parent minerals (causing fossil or
primary salinityysodicity) or from anthropogenic
activities involving the inappropriate management
of land and water resources (contributing to man-
made or secondary salinityysodicity). Excess salin-
ity levels do not have adverse impacts on soil
structure and its physical and hydraulic properties.
Rather, saline conditions may have favorable
effects on soil structure stability (Quirk, 2001).
The adverse effects of salinity on crop growth
stem from two aspects: (1) increasing the osmotic
pressure and thereby making the water in the soil
less available for the plants and (2) specific effects
of some elements present in excess concentrations.
Since sodicity is mainly a soil problem, sodic soils
exhibit structural problems created by certain phys-
ical processes (slaking, swelling and dispersion of
clay) and specific conditions (surface crusting and
hardsetting) (Shainberg and Letey, 1984; Sumner,
1993; Quirk, 2001). Such problems may affect
water and air movement, plant-available water
holding capacity, root penetration, seedling emer-
gence, runoff, erosion and tillage and sowing
operations. In addition, imbalances in plant-avail-
able nutrients in salt-affected soils may affect plant
growth (Qadir and Schubert, 2002).
Reclamation of sodic and saline-sodic soils is
driven by providing a source of calcium (Ca2q)
to replace excess Naq from the cation exchange
sites. The replaced Naq is leached from the root
zone through excess irrigation, a process that
requires adequate flow of water through the soil.
Many sodic and saline-sodic soils, however, con-
tain a source of Ca2q, i.e. calcite (CaCO3) at
varying depths. Calcite is not sufficiently soluble
to affect soil reclamation at a partial pressures of
carbon dioxide (PCO2) present in the atmosphere
(0.0365 kPa). The more soluble CaCO3 minerals
such as vaterite, aragonaite, or CaCO3 hydrates
are not commonly found in soils or observed to
form pedogenically (Suarez and Rhoades, 1982).
Therefore, sodic soils have been generally
reclaimed through the application of chemical
3
amendments. Some amendments supply Ca2q
directly to the soil which then replaces excess
exchangeable Naq while others help increase dis-
solution rate of calcite in calcareous sodic soils.
However, chemical amelioration has become costly
for subsistence farmers in several developing coun-
tries (Kumar and Abrol, 1984; Ahmad et al.,
1990). Amendment costs have increased because
of increased usage by industry and reductions in
government subsidy to farmers for their purchase
during the last two decades. In addition, low
quality of amendments such as mined gypsum and
difficulties in its timely availability in some areas
have discouraged soil reclamation through chemi-
cal means. In the meantime, scientific research and
farmers’ feedback have revealed that saline-sodic
and sodic soils can be reclaimed through vegetative
bioremediation, which relies on enhanced dissolu-
tion of native calcite within the root zone to
provide adequate levels of Ca2q for an effective
Naq –Ca2q exchange at the cation exchange sites
(Robbins, 1986a; Ilyas et al., 1997; Batra et al.,
1997; Qadir et al., 2001).
2.1. Process of vegetative bioremediation
Vegetative bioremediation (VBio) of calcareous
sodic and saline-sodic soils is considered as a
function of the following factors.
VBios8RPCO qRHqqRPhyqSNaq
2
(1)
where RPCO refers to partial pressure of CO2 within
2
the root zone, RHq is proton (Hq) release in the
root zone in case of certain bioremediation crops
such as N2-fixing legumes, RPhy deals with physi-
cal effects of roots in improving soil aggregation
and hydraulic properties of the root zone, and
SNaq consists of Naq content of shoot that is
removed through harvesting of aerial plant portion.
The collective effects of these factors ultimately
lead to soil reclamation, provided drainage is
adequate and leaching occurs.
The enhanced level of PCO2 in the root zone
during cropping is considered as a major vegetative
bioremediation mechanism for calcareous sodic
and saline-sodic soils. In soils, PCO2 may be
approximately 1 kPa, and much higher under
4 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
anaerobic (Ponnamperuma, 1972) and cropped
conditions (Robbins, 1986b). The PCO2 effect in
calcareous sodic soils under cropping may be
expressed through a series of processes, which
involve: (1) increase in soil atmosphere CO2
concentration, (2) dissolution of CO2 in water to
form carbonic acid (H2CO3), (3) dissociation of
H2CO3 resulting in proton (Hq) and bicarbonate
(HCOy 3 ), (4) reaction of H
q
with soil CaCO3 to
produce Ca , (5) Na –Ca2q exchange at the
2q q
soil’s cation exchange sites as a consequence of
increased Ca2q concentration in soil solution, (6)
leaching of the exchanged Naq in percolating
water and (7) subsequent reduction in soil sodicity.
Root respiration is not the only mechanism
influencing PCO2. It is also impacted by the follow-
ing mechanisms that can act individually or col-
lectively: (1) Production of CO2 from oxidation
of plant root exudates. Soil organisms that oxidize
polysaccharides, proteins and peptides produce
CO2. (2) Soil organisms produce organic acids,
which help dissolve CaCO3. Regardless of the
source of CO2 production in soils, whether it be
from respiring roots, decomposing organic matter
and root exudates, or organic acid dissolution of
CaCO3, the end result is the same: Ca2q becomes
available to replace exchangeable Naq at a much
higher rate than can be achieved by dissolution of
CaCO3 at the level of PCO2 in the atmosphere.
In addition to aqueous CO2 that ultimately
results in the formation of Hq and HCOy 3 in the
root zone, another source of Hq may occur in
soils if cropped with N2-fixing plant species. It
has been largely accepted that legumes relying on
N2-fixation release Hq in the rhizosphere (Hinsin-
ger, 1998). The release of Hq from plant roots
contributes to a decrease in pH of non-calcareous
soils. However, pH of calcareous sodic and saline-
sodic soils does not decrease to a greater extent
rather Hq are neutralized by the dissolution of
calcite to provide Ca2q. Qadir et al. (2003) found
that Hq release by the N2-fixing crops could
increase the rate of Naq removal from calcareous
sodic soils. In a lysimeter experiment, they evalu-
ated N2-fixing alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) against
NH4NO3-fed alfalfa for the reclamation of a cal-
careous sodic soil (pHs 7.4, ECes3.1 dS my1,
ESPs27.6). Despite the fact that both the cropped
treatments produced statistically similar root and
shoot biomass, there was approximately 8% greater
removal of Naq in leachates collected from the
lysimeters grown with N2-fixing alfalfa.
Crop roots can stimulate changes in physical
properties of the root zone in several different
ways such as removal of entrapped air from larger
conducting pores, generation of alternate wetting
and drying cycles, and creation of macropores.
Aggregate stability is enhanced because of in situ
production of polysaccharides and fungal hyphae
in conjunction with differential dewatering at the
root–soil interface (Tisdall, 1991). This is consis-
tent with the observations that deep-rooted peren-
nial grasses and legumes can improve structure of
the plow layer of hard soils as a result of biological
drilling (Cresswell and Kirkegaard, 1995). Such
drilling has two stages: (1) Subsoil macropore
creation by roots of the drilling plant species.
When roots that penetrate the compacted soil layer
decay, they leave macropores that improve water
movement and gaseous diffusion. (2) Benefits to
subsequent crops following improvements in sub-
soil macroporosity. Roots of some crops such as
Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum Flugge) ¨ and tall
fescue wFestuca arundinacea (L.) Schreb.x can
grow through compacted soil layers, and improve
the soil below the plow pan. Field experimentation
with tall fescue showed an advantage for large
diameter roots of the species in penetrating low-
permeability soils (Elkins et al., 1977). Actively
growing roots of several crops have been tested as
a biological drilling tool on different soil types
(Cresswell and Kirkegaard, 1995).
Harvest of aerial plant portion, if not added
back to the same soil as a green manure, contrib-
utes to the removal of Naq from sodic and saline-
sodic soils. However, in comparison with the
amount of salt and Naq removed from these soils
via leaching, such removal through harvest of
shoot portion is insignificant (Barrett-Lennard,
2002). This even applies to salt-tolerant crops
grown under irrigated agriculture. For example, a
salt-tolerant perennial forage, Kallar grass wLepto-
chloa fusca (L.) Kunthx, is grown on calcareous
sodic and saline-sodic soils as a potential biore-
mediation crop in many parts of the world. Qadir
et al. (2000) have quantified salt removal through
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
aerial parts of the grass by using: (1) irrigation
waters of different salinities (ECiws0.5, 1.0 and
2.0 dS my1), (2) forage yield values of 20, 25
and 30 Mg hay1, (3) salt concentration in forage
ranging from 40 to 80 g kgy1 and (4) volume of
irrigation water used during its growth period as
0.8 ha m (8=106 l). With the highest forage yield
of 30 Mg hay1 and salt content of 80 g kgy1, the
maximum annual rate of salt removal by the grass
is 2.4 Mg hay1. The resulting fraction of salt added
through irrigation that is removed by the crop
ranges from 92% for the 0.5 dS my1 water to 23%
for the 2.0 dS my1 water. In case of crops less
tolerant than Kallar grass, salt removal through
aerial plant parts could be even smaller than these
estimates. The same applies to a decrease in soil
sodicity. The amount of Naq removed through
forage harvest is small when compared with the
amount of Naq removed through leaching.
2.2. Efficiency of vegetative bioremediation
The efficiency of different plant species for
sodic soil reclamation has been found to be highly
variable. In general, the species with greater pro-
duction of biomass together with the ability to
withstand ambient soil salinity and sodicity, and
periodic inundation have been found efficient in
soil reclamation (Ghaly, 2002; Qadir et al., 2002;
Kaur et al., 2002). Several lysimeter and field
studies have been conducted to compare chemical
and bioremediation treatments for their effects on
decrease in soil sodicity. In a summary of 14
experiments, a comparable effect of both the
approaches was observed in most cases (Fig. 1).
The chemical treatment (application of gypsum in
all experiments) caused 62% decrease in original
sodicity levels (ESP or SAR) whereas 52%
decrease was calculated for the bioremediation
treatment. However, in some experiments biore-
mediation was either unsuccessful or much less
efficient than the chemical treatment for the rea-
sons: (1) a crop tolerant to ambient soil salinity
and sodicity levels was not the first in the crop
rotation, (2) bioremediation crop was grown dur-
ing the time which was not its most suitable
growing season, (3) duration of time was not
sufficient to exploit the potential impact of the
5
bioremediation crop andyor (4) irrigation was not
applied in excess of crop water requirement, which
restricted the downward movement of Naq from
the root zone. In general, bioremediation worked
well on coarse- to medium-textured, moderately
sodic and saline-sodic soils, provided: (1) irriga-
tion was done in excess of crop water requirement
to provide adequate leaching and (2) the excess
irrigation was applied when the crop growth and
hence PCO2 were at their peak. On such soils,
performance of bioremediation was comparable
with soil application of gypsum. On highly sodic
soils, chemical treatment superceded the cropped
treatment(s).
The depth of soil amelioration is an important
parameter to judge the efficiency of different
reclamation approaches. In most comparative stud-
ies, reclamation in gypsum treatments occurred
primarily in the zone where the amendment was
incorporated. Gypsum in these experiments was
mixed into the soil surface, and in most cases, it
was agricultural grade and applied according to
gypsum requirement of upper 0.15 m of the soil.
Only as reclamation approached completion in the
region where gypsum was present, reclamation in
the deeper depths began. This was a direct conse-
quence of the exchange selectivity of the exchange
sites for Ca2q than for Naq (Suarez, 2001). In the
bioremediation treatments, amelioration occurred
throughout the root zone. This observation was
common in sodic soils grown with a range of
crops. However, different crops caused a variable
degree and depth of soil amelioration, which was
influenced by the morphology and volume of root
and the depth of root penetration (Batra et al.,
1997; Ilyas et al., 1997).
Nutrient availability status of postreclamation
soil is crucial for the subsequent crops. Qadir et
al. (1997) determined availability status of some
macro- and micro-nutrients during reclamation of
a calcareous saline-sodic soil (pHs 8.2–8.6, ECes
7.4–9.0 dS my1, SARs55.6–73.0). Bioremedia-
tion treatments included cropping of sesbania wSes-
bania bispinosa (Jacq.) W. Wightx, sordan
wSorghum=drummondii (Steud.) Millsp. &
Chasex, or Kallar grass for 15 months. There was
an increase in phosphorus (P), zinc (Zn) and
copper (Cu) availability in the bioremediated plots
6 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
owing to a decrease in soil pH, production of root
exudates, and likely dissolution of some nutrient-
coated calcite. Conversely, the uncropped gypsum
treatment caused a decrease in the nutrient availa-
bility. Besides leaching losses, adsorption of some
nutrients on newly formed CaCO3, a secondary
consequence of gypsum dissolution, contributed to
this decrease. Soil N content was decreased in all
the treatments except for the N2-fixing sesbania
treatment where N content was increased by
approximately 8% (Table 1). There was no treat-
ment effect on soil potassium (K) availability since
illite, a K bearing mineral, was dominant in the
clay fraction.
Enhancing carbon (C) sequestration in soils is
considered as a significant mean to reduce net
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—one of the
important greenhouse gases—to the atmosphere.
There has been a great potential of soil C seques-
tration through the restoration of degraded envi-
ronments such as salt-affected soils. These soils
have lost a large fraction of their original C pool
(Lal, 2001). In addition to the amelioration effect,
cultivation of appropriate crops, shrubs and trees
on sodic and saline-sodic soils has the potential to
mitigate the accelerated greenhouse effect by
increasing soil organic C through above- and
below-ground biomass production (Batra et al.,
1997; Garg, 1998; Kaur et al., 2002). Estimates
from field studies show that different land-use
systems consisting of a number of grasses and
trees can sequester organic C in such soils in the
range of 0.17–0.77 Mg C hay1 yry1 (Table 2).
Considering vegetative bioremediation of just one-
tenth (0.1=109 ha) of the existing salt-affected
soils of the world, the potential of organic C
sequestration through this amelioration strategy
could be in the range of 17–77 Tg C hay1 yry1
(1 Tgsteragrams1012 gs1 million metric
tonnes).
Vegetative bioremediation of calcareous and
moderately sodic and saline-sodic soils has shown
to be advantageous in several economic, environ-
ment and agronomic aspects: (1) no financial
outlay to purchase chemical amendments, (2)
financial or other benefits from crops grown during
reclamation, (3) promotion of soil aggregate sta-
bility and creation of macropores that improve soil
hydraulic properties, (4) better plant nutrient avail-
ability in soil during and after bioremediation, (5)
more uniform and greater zone of reclamation in
terms of soil depth and (6) sequestration of organic
C in soil. Vegetative bioremediation may face
certain limitations under conditions of very high
levels of salinity andyor sodicity where crop
growth is likely to be variable and patchy. Under
these conditions, the use of chemical amendments
seems inevitable.
3. Reusing drainage waters for irrigation
Drainage from irrigated lands is a necessity for
irrigation to be sustainable. Drainage waters carry
a salt load that is always higher, sometimes sub-
stantially higher, than that of the irrigation water.
In many instances, drainage water does not flow
directly back to the rivers from which the irrigation
water was obtained. Saline geologic deposits and
saline groundwaters often exist along the flow
path. As drainage water flows through these depos-
its, or displaces the saline groundwater, the salt
loads in the resulting drainage water can consid-
erably exceed those projected to occur from irri-
gation alone (Van Schilfgaarde, 1994). In some
geological settings, drainage waters may dissolve
and displace some minor elements that are poten-
tially toxic (Skaggs and van Schilfgaarde, 1999).
Such waters also are an economic burden to those
who have to use waters into which such waters
have been disposed, or to those who have to
dispose them in evaporation ponds.
Before the 1970s, the concern was limited to
salinity effects on crop productivity, its control
within the root zone by leaching, and drainage
water disposal. During the last two decades, con-
cerns have arisen regarding off-site impacts of
irrigation and drainage (Van Schilfgaarde, 1994).
On a long-term basis, the generation of drainage
water by irrigation can cause adverse effects on
groundwater quality. Thus, it is axiomatic that
irrigated agriculture cannot be maintained unless
there is adequate drainage coupled with appropriate
treatment, disposal, or utilization of the drainage
effluent in environmentally and economically
acceptable ways. The treatment processes of poor-
quality waters for agricultural use are energy inten-
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19 7

Table 1 these waters, would be to dispose drainage waters

Availability status of some macro- and micro-nutrients as into permanent evaporation ponds within the
affected by vegetative bioremediation and chemical treatments
on a calcareous saline-sodic soil (pHs 8.2–8.6, ECes7.4–9.0 region where they are collected. However, solar
dS my1, SARs55.6–73.0) evaporation from ponds can concentrate toxic ele-
ments and compounds in the water, if present, to
Nutrient Gypsuma Sesbaniab the levels that can become lethal to native birds
Initial Final Initial Final and animals (Skorupa, 1998). In this event, con-
c
Nitrogen (g kg )
y1
0.52 0.40 0.49 0.53
structed wetlands can be used to mitigate the
Phosphorusd (mg kgy1) 12.80 11.40 13.10 16.10 effects of evaporation ponds on wildlife. The
Coppere (mg kgy1) 0.92 0.76 0.93 1.04 constructed ponds occupy approximately 12% of
Zince (mg kgy1) 0.53 0.42 0.51 0.72 the total area on a permanent basis (Tanji et al.,
Modified from Qadir et al. (1997). 2002). Additional land may need to be dedicated
a
Gypsum application at 13 Mg hay1 (100% gypsum to constructed wetlands should toxic effects on
requirement of the 0.15 m soil depth). wildlife require mitigation. Finally, there are con-
b
Sesbania was grown for 15 months without the application
of a chemical amendment.
struction and operational costs of the ponds, and
c
Kjeldahl nitrogen. of the pipelines and canals to collect and convey
d
NaHCO3 extractable phosphorus. the drainage water to the ponds.
e
DTPA extractable copper and zinc. Studies conducted on the reuse of saline drain-
age waters for irrigation have shown promise for
sive and usually economically impractical crop production systems and soil management
(Pimentel et al., 1999). An alternative to disposal (Grattan and Rhoades, 1990; Oster, 1994; Sharma
of drainage waters into rivers or groundwaters, and Rao, 1998; Moreno et al., 2001). The key to
with the consequent degradation of the quality of this approach includes: (1) availability of drainage

Fig. 1. Summary of 14 experiments where chemical and vegetative bioremediation treatments have been compared for their effects
on a decrease in soil sodicity wsodium adsorption ratio (SAR) or exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)x. The bars for respective
treatments indicate percent decrease over the respective levels of original soil SAR or ESP values. References to the experiment
numbers are: 1 (Robbins, 1986a), 2 and 3 (Kausar and Muhammed, 1972), 4 (Qadir et al., 1996, 5 (Singh and Singh, 1989), 6
(Ahmad et al., 1990), 7 (Ilyas et al., 1997), 8 (Kelley and Brown, 1934), 9 (Batra et al., 1997), 10 and 11 (Muhammed et al.,
1990), 12 (Qadir et al., 2002), 13 (Ghaly, 2002), 14 (Helalia et al., 1992), and 15 (mean values of the 14 experiments). Studies
1–4 were conducted in lysimeters, others under field conditions.
8 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19

Table 2
Potential of two land-use systems (grass only and tree–grass) for carbon (C) sequestration in a calcareous sodic soil (pH 10.0–
10.2; ECs2.0–6.4 dS my1)

Treatmenta Organic C in soil (g kgy1) at different depthsb C sequestration

(Mg ha#1 yr#1)c
0–0.075 m 0.075–0.15 m Mean
Desmostachya 2.9 1.6 2.3 0.33
Sporobolus 2.4 1.3 1.8 0.17
AcaciaqDesmostachya 3.6 1.8 2.7 0.47
DalbergiaqDesmostachya 4.6 2.4 3.5 0.73
ProsopisqDesmostachya 4.7 2.5 3.6 0.77
AcaciaqDesmostachya 2.6 1.4 2.0 0.23
DalbergiaqDesmostachya 3.2 1.7 2.5 0.40
ProsopisqDesmostachya 3.6 1.9 2.8 0.50
Original C content in the soil for various treatments varied from 1.0 to 1.6 g kgy1. Recalculated from Kaur et al. (2002).
a
Complete nomenclature for different plant species: Desmostachya wDesmostachya bipinnata (L.) Stapfx, Sporobolus (Sporobolus
marginatus Hochst. ex A. Rich), Acacia wAcacia nilotica (L.) Delilex, Dalbergia (Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. ex DC), Prosopis wProsopis
juliflora (Sw.) DCx.
b
After 6 years of plantation.
c
Assuming C content in the soil as 1.3 g kgy1 (average of the C content, which ranged from 1.0 to 1.6 g kgy1) and mass of
0.15 m depth of 1 ha as 2=106 kg, the rate of organic C sequestration in the soil under each treatment was calculated as: organic
C sequestration (Mg hay1 yry1)sw(mean C contentyoriginal C content in soil)2xy6.

water when crops need it, which may require
storage facilities, either in the soil though con-
trolled drainage techniques, or in surface reser-
voirs, (2) cultivation of appropriately salt, B and
Naq tolerant crops and (3) adequate leaching
while avoiding deterioration of soil physical con-
ditions. Leaching, the application of excess water
over that needed for evapotranspiration, prevents
excess accumulation of salts in the root zone. This
extra quantity of water, referred to as leaching
requirement, must be able to pass through the root
zone. Consequently adequate soil permeability and
drainage are a necessity, either as a consequence
of natural or artificial drainage. Where artificial
drainage is installed, controlled discharge practices
may be used to maximize crop water use from the
shallow (1–1.3 m) groundwater (Ayars, 2003).
Besides agronomic and environment aspects,
economic incentives also promote the reuse of
drainage waters for crop production systems. Such
incentives can be designed to motivate near-term
reductions in effluent and long-term investments
that will reduce the volume of effluent generated
per unit of agricultural production (Knapp, 1999).
Increasing block-rate prices and salt-load surcharg-
es can motivate farmers to improve water manage-
ment practices and reduce unnecessary deep
percolation. Such pricing would motivate farmers
to choose irrigation methods that will reduce
regional salt loads. For instance, Wichelns et al.
(1996) reported reductions in water applications
ranging from 9% on tomato (Lycopersicon escu-
lentum Mill.) fields to 25% on cotton fields as a
result of implementing block-rate prices of water
and other economic incentives.
There are three major approaches that involve
the use of saline andyor sodic drainage waters for
crop production. These include cyclic, blending
and sequential use and reuse of such waters
through surface irrigation. A number of studies
have been carried out during the last two decades
that evaluated these approaches on a field scale.
These approaches allow a good degree of flexibil-
ity to fit different situations.
3.1. Cyclic reuse
The cyclic strategy involves the use of saline-
sodic drainage water and nonsaline irrigation water
in crop rotations that include both moderately salt-
sensitive and salt-tolerant crops. Typically, the
nonsaline water is also used before planting and
during initial growth stages of the salt-tolerant
crop while saline water is usually used after
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
seedling establishment. Following the use of
saline-sodic drainage water, gypsum may need to
be applied to the soil surface before irrigation with
nonsaline water, or before a rainy season, to
prevent problems with slow water infiltration, soil
crusting, poor tilth and inadequate aeration. The
cyclic strategy requires a crop rotation plan that
can make best use of the available good- and poor-
quality waters, and takes into account the different
salt sensitivities among the crops grown in the
region, including the changes in salt sensitivities
of crops at different stages of growth.
The advantages of cyclic strategy include: (1)
steady-state salinity conditions in the soil profile
are never reached because the quality of irrigation
water changes over time, (2) soil salinity is kept
lower over time, especially in the topsoil during
seedling establishment, (3) a broad range of crops,
including those with high economic-value and
moderate salt sensitivity, can be grown in rotation
with salt-tolerant crops and (4) conventional irri-
gation systems can be used. A major disadvantage
is that drainage water must be collected and kept
separate from the primary water supply, i.e. it
requires storage when it cannot be used for
irrigation.
The cyclic strategy was first demonstrated to be
sustainable in the Westside San Joaquin Valley of
California by Rhoades (1987). A good-quality
water (ECs0.5 dS my1) was used to irrigate
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) during germina-
tion and seedling establishment, and a saline-sodic
water (ECs7.9 dS my1, SARs11) was used
thereafter. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was sub-
sequently irrigated with the good-quality water,
followed by 2 years of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris
L.) irrigated with the saline-sodic water. Other
studies conducted in California involving the
cyclic use of drainage waters (Rhoades, 1989;
Oster, 1994; Shennan et al., 1995) have revealed
that this strategy is sustainable for cotton, wheat,
safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.), sugar beet,
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), canta-
loupe (Cucumis melo L.) and pistachio (Pistacia
vera L.), provided the problems of crusting, poor
aeration and tilth are dealt with optimum manage-
ment.
9
In India, Sharma and Rao (1998) provided
evidence that saline drainage waters (ECs6, 9,
12 and 18.8 dS my1) could be used successfully
for 7 years to irrigate different crops without any
serious degradation of a coarse-textured soil. The
crop rotations were: wheat-fallow for 3 years, and
wheat-pearl millet wPennisetum glaucum (L.) R.
Br.x or sorghum for 4 years. The mean yield
reduction was approximately 4% when a water of
EC 6 dS my1 was used for irrigation. The crop
yield declined approximately 22% where the EC
18.8 dS my1 and SAR 15 water was used for
irrigation. The soil salinity levels developed by the
saline-sodic irrigation water were managed satis-
factorily by monsoon rains. At times a pre-sowing
irrigation of 70 mm with a low-salinity canal water
was applied to decrease soil salinity to levels
suitable for the subsequent crop. The average
annual rainfall and pan-evaporation for the area
over a 16-year period were 650 and 2500 mm,
respectively. The extent of salt leaching was heav-
ily dependent on the total amount of monsoon
rainfall and subsurface drainage.
In Israel, some areas of the Negev region are
underlain with aquifers that contain saline-sodic
water. In this Mediterranean climate (winter rain-
fall 250–400 mm), the soils with silt loam texture
are grown with cotton. In a 16-year study (Keren
et al., 1990), a poor-quality water (ECs4.6
dS my1, SARs26) was used for irrigation during
summer (450 mm), which resulted in ESP values
ranging from 20 to 26 in the upper 0.6 m of the
soil. There was no deterioration in soil hydraulic
properties during the summer because salinity of
the irrigation water was sufficient to counteract
the deleterious effects of exchangeable Naq. How-
ever, deterioration did occur during the rainy sea-
son because of the negligible salinity of rain water.
An annual application of phosphogypsum at 5
Mg hay1 to the soil surface, following tillage in
the fall, prevented the formation of surface seals
and crusts and maintained adequate infiltration
rate. In turn, this assured sufficient infiltration of
rainfall to leach salts from the root zone. Average
cotton yields from the area were 5 Mg hay1, which
were similar to those obtained by irrigation with
the good-quality irrigation water.
10 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
In southwest Spain, the soils are characterized
by a high clay content (;700 g kgy1) dominated
by illite, and an extremely saline water (EC)80
dS my1) below a shallow (1 m) water table. An
artificial drainage system has been provided, which
consists of cylindrical ceramic sections (0.3 m
long) forming pipes 250 m long, buried at a depth
of 1 m and spaced at intervals of 10 m. The drains
discharge into a collecting channel perpendicular
to the drains. This drainage system controls the
water table level, which remains at a depth of
approximately 0.9 m and avoids encroachment of
the saline water into the root zone. In the presence
of a low and variable rainfall, good-quality water
falls short of crop water requirement. Moreno et
al. (2001) evaluated an irrigation combination
comprising of one irrigation with highly saline-
sodic water (ECs22.7 dS my1, SARs38.1)
applied between two consecutive irrigations with
fresh water (ECs0.9 dS my1) to cotton during
first year, and two irrigations with moderately
saline-sodic water (ECs5.9–7.0 dS my1, SARs
6.3–12.3) to sugar beet during the second year.
The cotton yields were 4.2 Mg hay1 from the
control (irrigation with fresh water only) and 4.3
Mg hay1 for the cyclic irrigation with non-signif-
icant treatment differences. In case of sugar beet,
sugar content and beet yield (90.6 Mg hay1) from
the cyclic irrigation were significantly higher than
the plots where freshwater was applied throughout
the growing season (75.8 Mg hay1).
In Pakistan, more than 2=106 ha of the Indus
plains are cropped with rice (Oryza sativa L.)–
wheat rotation, which has approximately 2–3
months of fallow period after the wheat harvest.
This period is usually hot, dry and windy with
scarce supplies of good-quality irrigation water to
grow a high-value cash crop. Consequently, the
salts tend to move upward through capillary rise
during this period (Qadir et al., 2001). Saline-
sodic drainage waters from tile drains are available
in several parts and are posing disposal problems.
In experiments on farmers’ fields, such waters
have been used to irrigate sesbania to fill the gap
in the rice–wheat rotation (Abdul Ghafoor, per-
sonal communication, 2002). As a short duration
crop, sesbania provides good-quality forage with
an additional ability of N2-fixation in soils (Qadir
et al., 1997) for the subsequent crop(s).
3.2. Reuse after blending
Blending consists of mixing good- and poor-
quality water supplies before or during irrigation.
Drainage water from a drainage sump can be
pumped directly into the nearest irrigation canal,
or drainage water from a sump on a regional
collector, which serves several drainage systems,
can be conveyed to a single location and then
pumped into a main irrigation canal. In both cases,
the amount of drainage water pumped into the
canal can be regulated so that target salinities in
the blended water can be achieved. Different water
qualities are altered, according to the availability
of different irrigation water qualities and quanti-
ties, between or within an irrigation event. Blend-
ing saline drainage waters with good-quality
irrigation waters has been a common practice in
several regions such as India, Pakistan and USA
(Ghafoor et al., 1991; Minhas, 1996; Oster et al.,
1999).
Letey et al. (1985) developed a model describ-
ing plant response to irrigation amount when the
root zone salinity was in steady state. Dinar et al.
(1986) used this model to estimate the percentage
of saline water that can be blended with nonsaline
water to achieve different yield potentials. Assum-
ing a leaching fraction of 25%, the percentage of
saline water depends on crop salt tolerance, salinity
of the drainage water, and desired yield potential
(Table 3). For a moderately sensitive crop, lettuce
(Lactuca sativa L.), drainage waters with salinities
in the range of 4–6 dS my1 have little usefulness
unless a potential yield of 80% is acceptable. Even
then, the percentage of saline water ranges from
23 to 37%. For a salt-tolerant crop such as cotton,
35% of the water applied can have a salinity of
10 dS my1 at a 100% yield potential; at a yield
potential of 80%, all the applied water can have a
salinity of 10 dS my1, except for the seedling
establishment that requires soil salinities less than
2 dS my1 in the seed zone.
Blending is often proposed as a way to extend
the water supplies. However, blending good-qual-
ity irrigation water with water that is too saline
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19 11

Table 3
The maximum percentage of saline water (ECs4–10 dS my1) that can be mixed with non-saline irrigation water (ECs0.8
dS my1) to achieve a yield potential of 100 and 80% of selected crops that vary in salt tolerance

Crop Salt tolerance EC of saline water (dS my1)

4 6 8 10
100% yield
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) MSa (1.3, 13)b 2 2 1 1
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) MS (2.0, 7.3) 14 9 6 5
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) MS (2.5, 9.9) 25 15 11 9
Zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.) MT (4.7, 9.4) 62 38 28 22
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) T (7.7, 5.2) 100 62 44 35
80% yield
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) MS (1.3, 13) 37 23 17 13
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) MS (2.0, 7.3) 80 52 39 31
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) MS (2.5, 9.9) 78 48 35 27
Zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.) MT (4.7, 9.4) 100 84 68 58
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) T (7.7, 5.2) 100 100 100 100
Estimates assume a leaching fraction of 25%. Adapted from Oster and Grattan (2002).
a
Salt tolerance ratings abbreviated as moderately sensitive (MS), moderately tolerant (MT) and tolerant (T).
b
The first number in parentheses is the average root zone threshold salinity in dS my1 , and the second is the percent yield decline
per unit increase in average root zone salinity (Maas and Grattan, 1999).

can negate the effects of such expansion as exem-
plified by the use of 4–6 dS my1 water for lettuce
(Table 3). From the point of view of irrigated
agriculture, the principal objective has always been
to increase the amount of water available to sup-
port transpiration because plant growth is directly
proportional to water consumption through tran-
spiration. The greater the salinityysodicity of irri-
gation water, the less will be evapotranspired
before the concentration will become limiting for
plant growth. Therefore, plants must have an
access to water of a quality that is suitable for
their consumption. A plant cannot grow properly
if salt concentration in the soil water exceeds the
specific limit for growth under given conditions of
climate and management. For highly saline water,
blending it with low salinity water can result in
the loss of consumable water. Blending results in
greater salinity in the soil surface over time, which
can reduce seedling establishment and crop yield,
and decreases the opportunity to grow high eco-
nomic-value salt-sensitive crops. Under such con-
ditions, more crop production can usually be
achieved from the total water supply by keeping
the water components separate than using them in
a blended form (Rhoades, 1999). However, blend-
ing may be more practical for situations where the
drainage water or shallow ground water is not too
saline for the crops and insufficient quantities of
fresh water are available to meet crop water
requirements.
3.3. Sequential reuse
This option involves applying the relatively
better quality water to the crop with the lowest
salt tolerance, then using the drainage water from
that field—obtained from subsurface drainage sys-
tem—to irrigate crops with greater salt tolerance.
The simplest management method is to use drain-
age water on fields located down-slope from those
where the drainage water is collected. There is no
fixed number of times the cycle can be repeated.
It depends on salinity, sodicity, and concentrations
of toxic minor elements in drainage water, volume
of water available, and the economic value and
acceptable yield of the crop to be grown.
The sequential strategy provides the means of
minimizing the volume of drainage water produced
by irrigated agriculture. The long-term feasibility
12 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
of drainage water reuse would likely be increased
if implemented on a regional scale rather than on
a farm scale. Grattan and Rhoades (1990) provided
a schematic presentation of regional drainage water
reuse strategy. Regional management of drainage
water permits its reuse in dedicated areas so as to
localize the impacts of its use while other areas,
such as up-slope areas, can be irrigated solely with
better quality water. The second-generation drain-
age water from the primary reuse area may be
discharged to other dedicated reuse areas where
even more salt-tolerant crops could be grown
successfully. Ideally, regional coordination and cost
sharing among growers should be undertaken in
such a reuse system.
In California, the sequential reuse experiments
have involved the use of trees, shrubs and grasses
(Tanji and Karajeh, 1993; Cervinka, 1994; Oster
et al., 1999). Tanji and Karajeh (1993) used a
tree–shrub combination by growing Eucalyptus
camaldulensis Dehnh. with subsurface drain water
collected from nearby croplands (ECs10
dS my1, SARs11) while effluents from Eucalyp-
tus and the perimeter interceptor drain (ECs32
dS my1, SARs69) were used to irrigate Atriplex
species. The tree plantation was successful in
lowering the water table from 0.6 m to 2.3 m
while consumptively using the saline-sodic water.
But after 5 years of drain water reuse, a substantial
buildup of salinity, sodicity, and B occurred
throughout the soil profile to the extent that the
trees were unable to fully extract the available soil
water. Cervinka (1994) used Eucalyptus as the
first plant species followed by Salicornia as the
second and final species. Although Salicornia
efficiently used the saline irrigation water, the
yield of its oil bearing seeds was low. The Euca-
lyptus trees did not prove to be effective for
drainage water use in the western San Joaquin
Valley. The major deterrents were found to be: (1)
lower salt tolerance than originally anticipated, (2)
susceptibility to frost damage and (3) susceptibility
to low oxygen status associated with excessively
wet soil conditions resulting from over watering
to maintain appropriate levels of salinity in the
root zone (Letey et al., 2001). In a 4-year field
study, Oster et al. (1999) found significant reduc-
tions in growth rate and water use of Eucalyptus
when irrigated with saline-sodic waters (ECs8–
10 dS my1, SARs25–30) resulting in average
root zone salinities (ECe) of 20–22 dS my1. Else-
where in the world, two species of Eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus occidentalis Endl. and Eucalyptus sar-
gentii Maiden) were reported to be tolerant to both
waterlogging and salinity (Marcar et al., 1995).
Qureshi and Barrett-Lennard (1998) reported
Tamarix aphylla (L.) H. Karst. as capable of doing
well under a variety of stress conditions such as
drought, waterlogging and salinity. Van der Moezel
et al. (1989) found two species of Casuarina
(Casuarina obesa Miq. and Casuarina glauca
Sieber ex Spreng.) to be useful trees for saline
and waterlogged areas.
Owing to partly unsuccessful attempts to devel-
op agroforestry systems based on sequential reuse
of saline-sodic drainage water in the San Joaquin
Valley of California (Tanji and Karajeh, 1993;
Cervinka, 1994), the recent focus is on forage
cropping systems. Production systems based on
salt-tolerant forage crops and grasses using saline
irrigation waters may be sustainable. The objective
of the forage production systems would be to
provide a year round supply of high-quality feeds
suitable for grazing and economic weight gains in
cattle or sheep, or alternatively for sale to dairy
farms as ensilage or hay. If a livestock production
system is based on the reuse of drainage waters, it
can transform such waters from a necessary evil
into a practice yielding significant economic
returns. These production systems can reduce the
amount of water that must be disposed to ground
or surface waters, and provide the incentive to
install needed artificial drainage systems to sustain
and improve soil quality. It has been demonstrated
through preliminary experiments that Bermuda
grass wCynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.x can be grown
with saline-sodic waters having EC approximately
17 dS my1 and SAR exceeding 25 (Oster et al.,
1999). Oster and Birkle (2001) have provided
information regarding growth habit, salt tolerance
characteristics, average root zone salinity at 70%
yield, and leaching requirement of several forages
and Eucalyptus camaldulensis (clone 4544) when
irrigated with a water having salinity of 10
dS my1 and SAR of 15 (Table 4).
Table 4
Growth habit, salt tolerance characteristics, average root zone salinity at 70% yield, and leaching requirement for forages and Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Clone 4544) when irrigated with
a water having a salinity of 10 dS my1 and sodium adsorption ratio of 15

Forage cropa Growth season Salt tolerance Salt tolerance ECe (70)c LRd
habit ratingb coefficients (dS m#1) (%)

Common name Botanical name Threshold Slope

European alkali grass Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Parl. T 32e -10

M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
Salt grass Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene Summer, perennial T )15f -10
Silt grass Paspalum vaginatum Sw. Summer, perennial T 10–22g, 23f -10
Asparagus Asparagus officinalis L. Perennial T 4.1 2.0 19 15
Wheat, cv. Probred Triticum aestivum L. Winter, annual MT 4.5 2.6 16 15
Wheat, durum Triticum turgidum L. Winter, annual MT 2.1 2.5 14 20
Tall wheatgrass Agropyron elongatum P. Beauv. Winter, perennial T 7.5 4.2 15 20
Sugar beet Beta vulgaris L. Annual T 7.0 5.9 12 20
Triticale cv. Cananeab =Triticosecale sp. Annual T 8.1 8.8 12h 20
Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Summer T 6.9 6.4 12 25
Kallar or Karnal grass Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth Perennial T 3.0 3.4 12 25
Safflower Carthamus tinctorius L. MT 11i 25
Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Winter T 7.5 6.9 12 25
(cv. Fairway)
Siberian wheatgrass Agropyron sibiricum (Willd.) Winter MT 3.5 4.0 11 25
(cv. Standard)
Barley Hordeum vulgare L. Winter MT 6.0 7.1 10 30
Sudan grass Sorghum sudanense (Piper) Stapf Summer MT 2.8 4.3 10 30
Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea Schreb. Winter MT 3.9 5.3 10 30
Russian-thistle Salsola tragus L. Annual MT
Cordgrass Spartina sp. Perennial Tj
Rhodes grass Chloris gayana Kunth Perennial MT
Murray red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. Summer, perennial MT 3.5 5.6 9k 40
(Clone 4544)
Unless noted, the salt tolerance data were obtained from Maas and Grattan (1999). Adapted from Oster and Birkle (2001).
a
Crops with a salt tolerance ranking of tolerant for which there are no Maas–Hoffman coefficients (Maas and Hoffman, 1997) for forage yields, include the following: rye, Nuttall alkali
grass, alkali sacaton, Altai wild rye and Russian wild rye. Similarly, moderately tolerant crops include: kenaf, oats, mountain brome, reed canary grass, Huban clover, sweet clover, meadow
fescue, blue panic grass, rape, rescue grass, Rhodes grass, Italian ryegrass, bird’s foot broadleaf trefoil, intermediate wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass and western wheatgrass.
b
Salt tolerance ratings abbreviated as T (tolerant) and MT (moderately tolerant).
c
ECe (70) represents 70% yield at a given root zone salinity in dS my1.
d
Leaching requirements were calculated using the production function model of Letey et al. (1985). The calculated leaching requirements were corrected for the effects of gypsum and
calcite precipitation, and finally rounded to the nearest 5%.
e
Lund et al. (1961).
f
Shannon and Oster, preliminary estimates.
g
Peacock and Ducek (1985).
h
Francois et al. (1988).
i
Francois and Bernstein (1964).
j
National Research Council (1990).
k
Shannon et al. (1997).

13
14 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
4. Crops for vegetative bioremediation and
drainage water reuse strategies
An appropriate selection of plant species capable
of producing adequate biomass is vital during
vegetative bioremediation and different drainage
water reuse strategies. Such selection is generally
based on the ability of a crop to withstand elevated
levels of soil salinity and sodicity while also
providing a saleable product or one that can be
used on-farm. Salinity may reduce crop yields by
disturbing the water and nutritional balance of
plants (Maas and Grattan, 1999). Sodicity affects
plant growth by deteriorating the soil physical
conditions. The salt tolerance of a crop is not an
exact value being dependant on several soil and
crop factors as well as climate. It reflects the
capacity of a crop to endure the effects of excess
root zone salinity. Although the capacity of a crop
to endure salinity cannot be stated in absolute
terms, the relative crop responses to known salin-
ities under certain conditions can be predicted.
Considerable variation exists among crops to
tolerate saline-sodic conditions. Such inter- and
intra-crop diversity suggests that field trials be
conducted to identify local crops that are adaptable
to saline-sodic soil conditions (Shannon, 1997).
The farmers, consultants and scientists familiar
with local conditions, including crop response to
adverse soil conditions and cropping strategies that
fit into the local economic conditions, provide a
valuable resource base for making recommenda-
tions. In addition, application of plant biotechnol-
ogy approaches is also needed to develop crops
that can show enhanced salt tolerance and perform-
ance under field conditions (Pitman and Lauchli,
¨ an irrigation source. These include: Terminalia
2002).
Crops used as a reclamation tool for saline-
sodic soils or irrigated with drainage waters may
experience oxygen deficiency. This can be expect-
ed for three reasons: (1) the need to overirrigate
for providing the needed leaching to control salin-
ity levels in the soil, (2) the likelihood that
problem soils—excessively saline and sodic with
low infiltration rates and hydraulic conductivi-
ties—will be selected in the first place and (3)
inundation (surface ponding) due to a prolonged
rainy season. Root zone salinity and sodicity in
conjunction with oxygen deficiency affect active
transport and exclusion processes in root cell
membranes compared with saline non-waterlogged
conditions (Drew, 1983). The genotypes showing
greater tolerances against the combined effects of
salinity, sodicity and hypoxia would be of better
choice for the bioremediation and drainage water
reuse approaches.
Several crops, shrubs and grasses have been
used as a bioremediation tool to ameliorate a
variety of sodic and saline-sodic soils. Some work-
ers have favored the inclusion of Kallar grass
(Kumar and Abrol, 1984; Malik et al., 1986),
sesbania (Ahmad et al., 1990; Qadir et al., 2002),
alfalfa (Ilyas et al., 1993), Bermuda grass (Kelley,
1937; Oster et al., 1999), or sordan (Robbins,
1986a) as the first crop to accelerate soil amelio-
ration. Several other plant species have produced
adequate biomass on salt-affected soils andyor
through irrigation with saline-sodic waters. These
include shrub species from the genera Atriplex and
Maireana (Malcolm, 1993; Barrett-Lennard,
2002), Kochia scoparia L. (Garduno, 1993), Sal-
icornia bigelovii Torr. (Glenn et al., 1999), Echin-
ochloa crusgalli (L.) P. Beauv. (Aslam et al.,
1987) and Portulaca oleracea L. (Grieve and
Suarez, 1997), among others. However, it is imper-
ative to compare them with other species already
tested for sodic soil reclamation or drainage water
reuse. In addition, efforts are needed to search
other crops that could have the potential for sus-
tainable and economical use of saline andyor sodic
irrigation waters and soils.
A number of tree plantations have been used to
reclaim sodic soils or to reuse drainage waters as
arjuna (Roxb. ex DC.) Wight & Arn. (Jain and
Singh, 1998), Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. (Bho-
jvaid et al., 1996), Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. ex DC.,
Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile (Kaur et al.,
2002), Parkinsonia aculeata L. and Prosopis cin-
eraria (L.) Druce (Qureshi and Barrett-Lennard,
1998), Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr. and Tamarix
dioica Roxb. ex Roth (Singh, 1989), and Leucaena
leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit (Qureshi et al., 1993),
among others. In Australia, Farrington and Salama
(1996) have recommended revegetation by trees
to be the best long-term option for controlling
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19 15

Table 5
Economic evaluation in terms of cost:benefit ratio of some studies dealing with vegetative bioremediation of calcareous saline-sodic
and sodic soils

Crops used Cost:benefit Market demandylocal utilization Reference

Kallar grass 1.00:1.66 Yes Chaudhry and Abaidullah (1988)
Rice–Wheat 1.00:1.47 Yes Chaudhry and Abaidullah (1988)
Sesbania–Barley 1.00:1.08 Yes Chaudhry and Abaidullah (1988)
Karnal grass 1.00:0.75 No Singh and Singh (1989)
Kallar grass 1.00:1.42 Yes Sandhu and Qureshi (1986)
Agroforestry Profitablea Yes Qureshi et al. (1993)
a
Agroforestry of saline-sodic soils with tree species in the order of profitability: Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh.)Acacia
nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Delile)Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.)Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit.

dryland salinity. In India, Garg (1998) observed
significant improvement in a sodic soil through
planting salt-tolerant trees over a period of 8 years.
Qureshi and Barrett-Lennard (1998) have provided
useful information regarding sources of seeds,
nursery raising techniques, and land preparation
and planting procedures for 18 different tree and
shrub species having potential for growth on salt-
affected soils.
Any change in a cropping pattern or farm
operation is driven by the cost of inputs involved
and the subsequent economic benefits. Several
studies have compared economics of sodic soil
amelioration and drainage water reuse options
(Table 5). Singh and Singh (1989) found a net
loss (cost:benefit 1.00:0.75) during bioremediation
although the growth of Karnal grass was adequate,
which helped reduce soil sodicity. They attributed
this economic loss to the small market demand of
the grass in the presence of other good-quality
forages in that locality. On the other hand, the
bioremediation strategy has been found economi-
cally beneficial when there was a market demand
or local utilization of the bioremediation crops at
the farm level (Sandhu and Qureshi, 1986; Chau-
dhry and Abaidullah, 1988). Qureshi et al. (1993)
found agroforestry systems comprising several tree
species to be economically viable because of a
need for firewood in local markets and effective-
ness in reclaiming calcareous saline-sodic soils of
the Indus Plains of Pakistan. On the other hand,
the market for firewood is not sufficient to make
agroforestry economically viable in California
(Oster et al., 1999). Preliminary assessments in
Australia suggest that there are 26 salt-tolerant
plant species capable of producing 13 products (or
services) of value to agriculture (Barrett-Lennard,
2002). From an economic perspective much
depends on local needs. In an immediate sense,
bioremediation and drainage water reuse strategies
can only be economically beneficial if the selected
crops, grasses, or trees have a market demand or
local utilization at the farm level. In the long run,
one must also consider the value of the improved
soils, or the reduced economic impacts that can
result from the uncontrolled discharge of drainage
waters into local canals, rivers and groundwater.
5. Future perspective
Despite limitations with the freshwater supplies,
particularly in water-starved countries, there will
be an increasing need for more water to meet the
needs of municipal, industrial and agricultural
sectors. With increasing population, less and less
freshwater will be available for agricultural use.
Consequently, the use and reuse of saline andyor
sodic irrigation waters is expected to increase in
the future. This scenario generates a need to
modify existing soil and crop management practic-
es in order to cope with the inevitable increases in
soil salinity and sodicity that will occur. We
propose two strategies to foster the sustainable use
of saline andyor sodic irrigation waters and soils
through: (1) developing cropping options compat-
ible with the constraints imposed by the expected
local levels of salinity, sodicity and waterlogging,
and (2) encouraging the use of economic incen-
tives to foster the long-term dedication of lands
irrigated with saline andyor sodic waters to crop
16 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
production systems that are most likely to be
sustainable.
As the use of saline andyor sodic irrigation
waters will increase, the assessment of the future
sustainability of their use, in regard to maintain
soil permeability, will become a more serious issue.
Although currently available research information
and computer models provide insights into what
may happen in the future, they are based on
laboratory methods that do not reflect field con-
ditions. Therefore, these options have limited abil-
ity to predict the impacts of soil sodicity and
salinity on the permeability of soil to air and water.
The hydrosalinity models need field-scale testing
on a range of soil types, and irrigation and crop-
ping practices. Although models are unlikely to
totally replace the need for continued research on
soil reclamation and irrigation management, they
do provide an important tool, for those familiar
with their features, for developing alternative rec-
lamation and irrigation plans and designing moni-
toring strategies to track their progress. Computer
modeling may help assess viability of the biore-
mediation and drainage water reuse strategies to
extend results broadly to other similar locations.
In the past, drainage control measures such as
tile drain and tubewell installations were done at
places when water table reached damaging levels.
Economic analysis of water table management
strongly suggests that drainage management should
begin well before the water table reaches critical
levels. This would delay or may even eliminate
the onset of drainage problems, thereby reducing
the cost when those levels would be reached. In a
similar way, efforts should be made to minimize
the occurrence of developing secondary salinityy
sodicity in soils by controlling the improper use
and management of land and water resources.
The interaction between soil management and
soil sodicity under different levels of salinity will
continue to be a challenge for researchers and
farmers. There is a need to apprise the farming
community about the fact that the occurrence of
soil salinity and sodicity problems in a particular
region does not mark the end of being able to use
the soil, or that its reclamation or use of drainage
waters for irrigation would require unrealistic
inputs. Making the right decisions at the farm level
in terms of input-use efficiency and resource pro-
tection is becoming an increasingly knowledge-
intensive task. Thus, there would be a need to
strengthen linkages among researchers, farm advi-
sors, and farmers for quick adoption of useful
research information by the farmers, and transfer
of research needs of farmers to researchers for
their attention. These linkages will continue to be
needed and fostered as the use of saline-sodic
waters and soils becomes more common. The
development of successful saline agriculture will
need a greater understanding of the potentials of
plants, soil and water, and the uses and markets
for the agricultural produce. We believe that the
time has come for the tactical management of
saline andyor sodic soils and drainage waters for
sustainable crop production systems in environ-
mentally acceptable and economically feasible
ways.
References
Ahmad N, Qureshi RH, Qadir M. Amelioration of a calcareous
saline-sodic soil by gypsum and forage plants. Land Degrad
Rehabil 1990;2:277 –284.
Aslam Z, Saleem M, Qureshi RH, Sandhu GR. Salt tolerance
of Echinochloa crusgalli. Biol Plant 1987;29:66 –69.
Ayars JE. Field crop production in areas with saline soils and
shallow saline groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley of
California. In: Goyal SS, Sharma SK, Rains DW, editors.
Crop production in saline environments: global and integra-
tive perspectives. New York: Haworth Press, 2003. p. 353 –
386.
Barrett-Lennard EG. Restoration of saline land through reve-
getation. Agric Water Manage 2002;53:213 –226.
Batra L, Kumar A, Manna MC, Chhabra R. Microbiological
and chemical amelioration of alkaline soil by growing
Karnal grass and gypsum application. Exp Agric
1997;33:389 –397.
Bhojvaid PP, Timmer VR, Singh G. Reclaiming sodic soils
for wheat production by Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC
afforestation in India. Agroforestry Systems 1996;34:139 –
150.
Bond WJ. Effluent irrigation—an environmental challenge for
soil science. Aust J Soil Res 1998;36:543 –555.
Bouwer H. Integrated water management for the 21st century:
problems and solutions. J Irrig Drain Eng 2002;28:193 –
202.
Cervinka V. Agroforestry farming system for the management
of selenium and salt on irrigated farmland. In: Frankenberger
WT, Benson S, editors. Selenium in the environment. New
York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1994. p. 237 –250.
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
Chaudhry MR, Abaidullah M. Economics and effectiveness of
biological and chemical methods in soil reclamation. Pak J
Agric Res 1988;9:106 –114.
Cresswell HP, Kirkegaard JA. Subsoil amelioration by plant
roots—the process and the evidence. Aust J Soil Res
1995;33:221 –239.
Dinar A, Letey J, Vaux HJ Jr.. Optimal ratios of saline and
non-saline waters for crop production. Soil Sci Soc Am J
1986;50:440 –443.
Drew MC. Plant injury and adaptation to oxygen deficiency
in the root environment: a review. Plant Soil 1983;75:179 –
199.
El-Ashry MT, Duda AM. Future perspectives on agricultural
drainage. In: Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J, editors.
Agricultural drainage. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
1999. p. 1285 –1298.
Elkins CB, Haaland RL, Hoveland CS. Grass root as a tool
for penetrating soil hardpans and increasing crop yields. In:
Proceedings of the 34th Southern Pasture and Forage Crop
Improvement Conference, 12–14 April 1977, Auburn, AL;
1977. p. 21–26.
Farrington P, Salama RB. Controlling dryland salinity by
planting trees in the best hydrogeological setting. Land
Degrad Dev 1996;7:183 –204.
Francois LE, Bernstein L. Salt tolerance of safflower. Agron
J 1964;56:38 –40.
Francois LE, Donovan TJ, Maas EV, Rubenthaler GL. Effect
of salinity on grain yield, and quality, vegetative growth,
and germination of triticale. Agron J 1988;80:642 –647.
Garduno MA. Kochia: a new alternative for forage under high
salinity conditions of Mexico. In: Lieth H, Al Masoom A,
editors. Towards the rational use of high salinity tolerant
plants, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993. p. 459 –464.
Garg VK. Interaction of tree crops with a sodic soil environ-
ment: potential for rehabilitation of degraded environments.
Land Degrad Dev 1998;9:81 –93.
Ghafoor A, Qadir M, Qureshi RH. Using brackish water on
normal and salt-affected soils in Pakistan: a review. Pak J
Agric Sci 1991;28:273 –288.
Ghaly FM. Role of natural vegetation in improving salt
affected soil in northern Egypt. Soil Till Res 2002;64:173 –
178.
Ghassemi F, Jakeman AJ, Nix HA. Salinisation of land and
water resources: human causes, extent, management and
case studies. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 1995. p. 517
Glenn EP, Brown JJ, Blumwald E. Salt tolerance and crop
potential of halophytes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 1999;18:227 –
255.
Grattan SR, Rhoades JD. Irrigation with saline ground water
and drainage water. In: Tanji KK, editor. Agricultural salinity
assessment and management, manuals and reports on engi-
neering practices no. 71. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers; 1990. p. 432–449.
Grieve CM, Suarez DL. Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.): a
halophytic crop for drainage water reuse systems. Plant Soil
1997;192:277 –283.
17
Hatfield JL, Sauer TJ, Prueger JH. Managing soils to achieve
greater water use efficiency: a review. Agron J
2001;93:271 –280.
Helalia AM, El-Amir S, Abou-Zeid ST, Zaghloul KF. Bio-
reclamation of saline-sodic soil by Amshot grass in northern
Egypt. Soil Till Res 1992;22:109 –115.
Hillel D. Salinity management for sustainable irrigation: inte-
grating science, environment, and economics. Washington,
DC: The World Bank, 2000. p. 92
Hinsinger P. How do plant roots acquire mineral nutrients?
Chemical processes involved in the rhizosphere. Adv Agron
1998;64:225 –265.
Ilyas M, Miller RW, Qureshi RH. Hydraulic conductivity of
saline-sodic soil after gypsum application and cropping. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993;57:1580 –1585.
Ilyas M, Qureshi RH, Qadir M. Chemical changes in a saline-
sodic soil after gypsum application and cropping. Soil
Technol 1997;10:247 –260.
Jain RK, Singh B. Biomass production and soil amelioration
in a high density Terminalia Arjuna plantation on sodic
soils. Biomass Bioenerg 1998;15:187 –192.
Kausar MA, Muhammed S. Comparison of biological and
chemical methods for reclaiming saline-sodic soils. Pak J
Sci Res 1972;24:252 –261.
Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G. Bioamelioration of a sodic soil
by silvopastoral systems in northwestern India. Agroforest
Syst 2002;54:13 –20.
Kelley WP. The reclamation of alkali soils. Calif Agric Exp
Sta Bull 1937;617:1 –40.
Kelley WP, Brown SM. Principles governing the reclamation
of alkali soils. Hilgardia 1934;8:149 –177.
Keren R, Sadan D, Frenkel H, Shainberg I, Mieri A. Effect of
saline water on soil properties and crop yield. Hassadeh
1990;70:1822 –1829 (in Hebrew).
Knapp KC. Economics of salinity and drainage management
in irrigated agriculture. In: Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J,
editors. Agricultural drainage. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-
SSSA, 1999. p. 1261 –1283.
Kumar A, Abrol IP. Studies on the reclaiming effect of Karnal-
grass and para-grass grown in a highly sodic soil. Indian J
Agric Sci 1984;54:189 –193.
Lal R. Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon
and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Climate Change
2001;51:35 –72.
Letey J, Dinar A, Knapp KC. Crop-water production function
model for saline irrigation waters. Soil Sci Soc Am J
1985;49:1005 –1009.
Letey J, Grattan SR, Oster JD, Birkle DE. Findings and
recommendations to develop the six-year activity plan for
the department’s drainage reduction and reuse program.
Final Report (Task Order No. 5), California Department of
Water Resources; 2001. p. 153.
Lund OR, Youngner VB, Oertli JJ. Salinity tolerance of five
turfgrass varieties. Agron J 1961;53:247 –249.
Maas EV, Hoffman GJ. Crop salt tolerance—current assess-
ment. J Irrig Drain Div 1997;103:115 –134.
18 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
Maas EV, Grattan SR. Crop yields as affected by salinity. In:
Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J, editors. Agricultural drain-
age. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 1999. p. 55 –108.
Malcolm CV. The potential of halophytes for rehabilitation of
degraded lands. In: Davidson N, Galloway R, editors.
Productive use of saline land. ACIAR Proceedings No. 42,
10–14 May 1991. Perth; 1993. p. 8–11.
Malik KA, Aslam Z, Naqvi M. Kallar grass: a plant for saline
land. Faisalabad: Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biol-
ogy, 1986. p. 93
Marcar N, Crawford D, Leppert P, Jovanovic T, Floyd R,
Farrow R. Trees for saltland: a guide to selecting native
species for Australia. Australia: CSIRO, 1995. p. 72
Minhas PS. Saline water management for irrigation in India.
Agric Water Manage 1996;30:1 –24.
Moreno F, Cabrera F, Fernandez-Boy E, Giron IF, Fernandez
JE, Bellido B. Irrigation with saline water in the reclaimed
marsh soils of south-west Spain: impact on soil properties
and cotton and sugar beet crops. Agric Water Manage
2001;48:133 –150.
Muhammed S, Ghafoor A, Hussain T, Rauf A. Comparison of
biological, physical and chemical methods of reclaiming
salt-affected soils with brackish groundwater. In: Proceed-
ings of the Second National Congress of Soil Science, 20–
22 December 1988. Faisalabad: Soil Science Society of
Pakistan; 1990. p. 35–42.
National Research Council. Saline agriculture: salt-tolerant
plants for developing countries. Washington DC: National
Academy Press; 1990. p. 143.
Oster JD. Irrigation with poor quality water. Agric Water
Manage 1994;25:271 –297.
Oster JD. Irrigation sustainability. In: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Micro-irrigation Congress, 22–27 October
2000. Cape Town. ICID-CIID. Plenary Session, P6. CD
Rom. Document Transformation Technologies, POB 560,
Lirene, 0062, South Africa.
Oster JD, Birkle DE. Potential crop production systems using
saline irrigation waters. Paper presented at the International
Seminar on Prospects of Saline Agriculture in the GCC
Countries, 18–20 March 2001. Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.
Oster JD, Grattan SR. Drainage water reuse. Irrig Drain Syst
2002;16:297 –310.
Oster JD, Kaffka SR, Shannon MC, Grattan SR. Saline-sodic
drainage water: a resource for forage production? In: Pro-
ceedings of the 17th International Congress on Irrigation
and Drainage, 11–19 September 1999, Granada. Poster
Session Q 49–P 6, p. 67–79.
Oweis T, Hachum A, Kijne J. Water harvesting and supple-
mental irrigation for improved water use efficiency in dry
areas. SWIM Paper 7, Colombo: International Water Man-
agement Institute: 1999. p. 41.
Peacock DH, Ducek AE. Physiological and growth responses
of seashore to salinity. Hortscience 1985;20:111 –112.
Pitman MG, Lauchli¨ A. Global impact of salinity and agricul-
¨
tural ecosystems. In: Lauchli ¨
A, Luttge U, editors. Salinity:
environment–plants–molecules. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.
p. 3 –20.
Pimentel D, Bailey O, Kim P, Mullaney E, Calabrese J,
Walman L, Nelson F, Yao X. Will limits of the earth’s
resources control human numbers? Environ Dev Sustaina-
bility 1999;1:19 –39.
Ponnamperuma FN. The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv
Agron 1972;24:29 –96.
Qadir M, Oster JD. Vegetative bioremediation of calcareous
sodic soils: history, mechanisms, and evaluation. Irrig Sci
2002;21:91 –101.
Qadir M, Schubert S. Degradation processes and nutrient
constraints in sodic soils. Land Degrad Dev 2002;13:275 –
294.
Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N. Reclamation of a saline-
sodic soil by gypsum and Leptochloa fusca. Geoderma
1996;74:207 –217.
Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N. Nutrient availability in a
calcareous saline-sodic soil during vegetative bioremedia-
tion. Arid Soil Res Rehabil 1997;11:343 –352.
Qadir M, Ghafoor A, Murtaza G. Amelioration strategies for
saline soils: a review. Land Degrad Dev 2000;11:501 –521.
Qadir M, Ghafoor A, Murtaza G. Use of saline-sodic waters
through phytoremediation of calcareous saline-sodic soils.
Agric Water Manage 2001;50:197 –210.
Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N. Amelioration of calcareous
saline-sodic soils through phytoremediation and chemical
strategies. Soil Use Manage 2002;18:381 –385.
Qadir M, Steffens D, Yan F, Schubert S. Proton release by
N2-fixing plant roots: a possible contribution to phytore-
mediation of calcareous sodic soils. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci
2003;166:14 –22.
Quirk JP. The significance of the threshold and turbidity
concentrations in relation to sodicity and microstructure.
Aust J Soil Res 2001;39:1185 –1217.
Qureshi RH, Barrett-Lennard EG. Saline agriculture for irri-
gated land in Pakistan: a handbook. Canberra: ACIAR,
1998. p. 142
Qureshi RH, Nawaz S, Mahmood T. Performance of selected
tree species under saline-sodic field conditions in Pakistan.
In: Lieth H, Al Masoom A, editors. Towards the rational
use of high salinity tolerant plants, vol. 1. Dordrecht:
Kluwer, 1993. p. 259 –269.
Rhoades JD. Use of saline water for irrigation. Water Qual
Bull 1987;12:14 –20.
Rhoades JD. Intercepting, isolating and reusing drainage waters
for irrigation to conserve water and protect water quality.
Agric Water Manage 1989;16:37 –52.
Rhoades JD. Use of saline drainage water for irrigation. In:
Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J, editors. Agricultural drain-
age. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 1999. p. 615 –657.
Robbins CW. Sodic calcareous soil reclamation as affected by
different amendments and crops. Agron J 1986;78:916 –920.
Robbins CW. Carbon dioxide partial pressure in lysimeter
soils. Agron J 1986;78:151 –158.
Sandhu GR, Qureshi RH. Salt-affected soils of Pakistan and
their utilization. Reclam Reveg Res 1986;5:105 –113.
 M. Qadir, J.D. Oster / Science of the Total Environment 323 (2004) 1–19
Shalhevet J. Using water of marginal quality for crop produc-
tion: major issues. Agric Water Manage 1994;25:233 –269.
Shainberg I, Letey J. Response of soils to sodic and saline
conditions. Hilgardia 1984;52:1 –57.
Shannon MC. Adaptation of plants to salinity. Adv Agron
1997;60:76 –120.
Shannon MC, Suhayda CG, Grieve CM, Grattan SR, Francois
LE, Poss JA, Draper JH, Oster JD. Water use of Eucalyptus
camaldulensis, Clone 4544, in saline drainage reuse systems.
In: Proceedings of the California Plant and Soil Conference,
15–16 January 1997, Visalia, California, 1997.
Sharma DP, Rao KVGK. Strategy for long term use of saline
drainage water for irrigation in semi-arid regions. Soil Till
Res 1998;48:287 –295.
Shennan C, Grattan SR, May DM, Hillhouse CJ, Schactman
DP, Wander M, Roberts B, Burau RG, McNeish C, Zelinski
L. Feasibility of cyclic reuse of saline drainage in a tomato–
cotton rotation. J Environ Qual 1995;24:476 –486.
Singh B. Rehabilitation of alkaline wasteland on the Gangetic
alluvial plains of Uttar Pradesh, India, through afforestation.
Land Degrad Rehabil 1989;1:305 –310.
Singh MV, Singh KN. Reclamation techniques for improve-
ment of sodic soils and crop yield. Indian J Agric Sci
1989;59:495 –500.
Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J. Introduction. In: Skaggs RW,
van Schilfgaarde J, editors. Agricultural drainage. Madison,
WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 1999. p. 3 –10.
Skorupa JP. Selenium poisoning of fish and wildlife in nature:
lessons from twelve real-world experiences. In: Frankenber-
ger WT, Engberg RA, editors. Environmental chemistry of
selenium. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1998. p. 315 –354.
19
Suarez DL, Rhoades JD. The apparent solubility of calcium
carbonate in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1982;46:716 –722.
Suarez DL. Sodic soil reclamation: modelling and field study.
Aust J Soil Res 2001;39:1225 –1246.
Sumner ME. Sodic soils: new perspectives. Aust J Soil Res
1993;31:683 –750.
Tanji KK, Karajeh FF. Saline drainwater reuse in agroforestry
systems. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 1993;119:170 –180.
Tanji KK, Davis D, Hanson C, Toto A, Higashi R, Amrehein
C. Evaporation ponds as a drainwater disposal management
option. Irrig Drain Syst 2002;16:279 –295.
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S.
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practic-
es. Nature 2002;418:671 –677.
Tisdall JM. Fungal hyphae and structural stability of soil. Aust
J Soil Res 1991;29:729 –743.
Van der Moezel PG, Walton CS, Pearce-Pinto GVN, Bell DT.
Screening for salinity and waterlogging tolerance in five
Casuarina species. Landscape Urban Plan 1989;17:331 –
337.
Van Schilfgaarde J. Irrigation—a blessing or a curse. Agric
Water Manage 1994;25:203 –232.
Wallace JS. Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to
meet future food production. Agric Ecosyst Environ
2000;82:105 –119.
Wichelns D. An economic perspective on the potential gains
from improvements in irrigation water management. Agric
Water Manage 2002;52:233 –248.
Wichelns D, Houston L, Cone D. Economic incentives reduce
irrigation deliveries and drain water volume. Irrig Drain
Syst 1996;10:131 –141.