AGRICULTURAL WATER
ANIMAL FARMING OPERATIONS:
GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES
THOMAS HARTER
University of California
Davis, California
Animal farming operations (AFOs) include feedlots,
dairies, cattle farms, hog farms, chicken farms, and other
facilities that raise or maintain a significant number of
animals either seasonally or year-round. With respect
to groundwater quality, the fate, reuse, and disposal of
animal manure produced at AFOs is of critical concern.
Groundwater benefits a wide variety of uses including
production as drinking water for domestic/municipal use,
production as irrigation water for agricultural/municipal
uses, ecosystem support, and providing base flow in rivers
and streams that is vital to the ecological health of
these surface waters. AFO related groundwater quality
issues result from potentially detrimental impacts during
the collection, transport, storage, and land application of
animal manure and animal wastes.
Potential groundwater pollutants originating from
AFOs are (1) salts and nutrients, (2) bacteria that indicate
the presence of pathogens, and (3) organic or inorganic
chemicals specifically associated with the management of
AFOs. Table 1 lists water quality standards and goals for
some of these pollutants, given various groundwater uses.
As in other nonanimal farms, any crop production areas
that are part of the AFO are also subject to application
of pesticides and commercial fertilizers, which may affect
groundwater quality.
Animal manure is physically characterized by its
weight, volume, moisture content, and solids content. Key
chemical properties of manure include nitrogen, phos-
phorus, and potassium content, 5-day biological oxygen
demand (BOD5 ), and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Nitrogen content is differentiated by organic nitrogen,
ammonium-nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen content. Typi-
cal values of the chemical composition of animal manure
can be found in USDA-NRCS (1) or in the American Soci-
ety of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Standards (X384.2:
Manure Production and Characteristics) (2). The specific
composition of freshly excreted animal manure varies
over a wide range depending on the animal species, the
age/production stage of the animal, the diet of the animal,
and the effects of weather, season, and animal care. The
specific operation of the manure collection, transport, and
storage facilities also greatly affect animal manure and
waste water composition due to mixing (including mixing
with nonmanure wastewaters collected within the AFO
facility), separation of solids and liquids, waste digestion,
aging, and any incidental or constructed waste treat-
ment processes.
Animal manure is subject to leaching into the
subsurface anywhere within the AFO and its land
application area, except in concrete-lined or otherwise
isolated areas of the operation. This includes unlined
feedlots, open corrals, manure solids storage areas,
538
manure and wastewater storage lagoons, and the fields
that receive manure from land application in either liquid
or solid form or as a sludge amendment.
The leaching of chemicals and pathogens into ground-
water is greatly affected by the timing and amount of
recharge, which may originate from precipitation, irriga-
tion, application of manure slurry, or from ponding of
wastewater (e.g., in storage lagoons). Soil texture, soil
permeability, organic matter content, cation exchange
capacity, and soil temperature further influence the fate
of some of the salts, nutrients, chemicals, and pathogens
released from manure excretion and manure land applica-
tions.
NITROGEN
Animal manure contains predominantly organic nitrogen,
Norg , and ammonium nitrogen, NH4 -N. Organic nitrogen
is the dominant form of nitrogen in manure solids
(particularly if they are separated from the liquid and
dried). The liquid portion of animal manure is rich in both
organic and ammonia nitrogen.
Organic nitrogen, if applied to land, is highly sorptive
and has very limited mobility: significant amounts of
organic nitrogen are usually found only in the top 5–30 cm,
depending on land management practices. Over time,
organic nitrogen will be converted to ammonium ion
(NH4 + ), a process referred to as mineralization. The
mineralization rate at which organic nitrogen converts to
ammonium depends on the manure composition, moisture
conditions, and temperature. After application onto soils
or incorporation into soils, higher temperature under
sufficiently moist conditions leads to rapidly increasing
mineralization rates.
Ammonium is subject to two major environmental
pathways: volatilization as ammonia gas (NH3 ) and
microbially facilitated oxidation to nitrate nitrogen, NO3 -
N. Ammonia volatilization may account for a significant
amount of the nitrogen loss from an AFO and is a major
environmental pathway of the total nitrogen excreted in
AFOs. High temperature and exposure of large surface
areas of manure to wind or air movement (e.g., during
the land application process) facilitate volatilization. Once
incorporated into the soil, ammonium volatilization is
limited due to strong sorption of the positively charged
ammonium ion to soil particles. Ammonium mobility
in soils is higher than that of organic nitrogen but
still sufficiently limited to prevent significant ammonium
movement to depths of more than 1–2 m. In sandy
soils with limited cation exchange capacity, ammonium
mobility can be enhanced if soil/groundwater redox
conditions are anoxic.
Under aerated, oxic conditions, microbial oxidation of
ammonium in soils is responsible for the conversion of
ammonium to nitrate (NO3 − ). This process is referred
to as ‘‘nitrification.’’ The time frame needed for complete
nitrification of soil ammonium varies from hours or days
under warm, moist conditions to months under near
freezing conditions.
 ANIMAL FARMING OPERATIONS: GROUNDWATER QUALITY ISSUES 539

Table 1. Selected Water Quality Standards and Guidelines for Various Uses
Livestock Water
Contaminant Drinking Water Supplyc Industrial Usesc

Nitrate (as N) 10 mg/La 100 mg/L Petroleum: 2 mg/L

Selenium 0.045 mg/La
Total coliform bacteria No more than one coliform-positive <200 to
sample/month (or no more than 5% <1,000,000
coliform-positive for systems that analyze
more than 40 samples/month)a
a
Fecal coliform bacteria 0 <1 to <10
Iron 0.3 mg/Lb
—
Manganese 0.05 mg/Lb
—
Chloride 250 mg/Lb
—
Sulfate 250 mg/Lb <250 mg/L to
<2,000 mg/L
Total dissolved solids 500 mg/Lb <500 mg/L to Textile: 150 mg/L
<3,000 mg/L Cooling water: 1000 mg/L
Paper: 1000 mg/L
Chemical: 2500 mg/L
a
Primary maximum contaminant levels, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
b
Secondary maximum contaminant levels, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
c
Reference 1 (available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov).

Nitrate, a negatively charged ion, has no sorptive
capacity and is highly mobile. It can be readily leached
from shallow soils and contaminates groundwater. Under
anoxic conditions, however, nitrate is reduced to harmless
nitrogen gas (‘‘denitrification’’). Denitrification is signif-
icant in heavy soils and in fine-grained unsaturated
sediments and rocks that are subject to anoxic condi-
tions. Reducing conditions in groundwater also lead to
significant denitrification.
Of concern to groundwater is the concentration of
nitrate in the recharge to groundwater. The potential
nitrate concentration is difficult to estimate because the
amount of volatilization and denitrification that occurs
after land application of manure is typically not known
with a high degree of accuracy. Where denitrification and
volatilization in the soil and unsaturated zone above the
water table are not significant processes, the potential
concentration of nitrate in recharge water can be obtained
from estimated annual nitrogen leaching losses and from
estimated amounts of annual recharge:
annual N leaching loss (kg/ha)
NO3 (mg/L) =
annual recharge (mm)
× 100 × 4.42
discharges into streams or lakes. Total phosphorus
levels above 0.05–0.1 mg/L potentially lead to significant
eutrophication of these surface waterbodies.
Manure contains significant amounts of phosphorus.
However, phosphorus is strongly sorbed to soil particles
and subject to plant uptake, when manure is applied
to crops. On sandy soils with limited cation exchange
capacity and on cracked clay soils, repeated applications
of manure may result in some phosphorus leaching to
shallow groundwater. If shallow groundwater is collected
in tile drains, drain ditches, or if it discharges into nearby
streams, elevated phosphorus concentration may become
a significant concern.
SALINITY
Solid and liquid manure are rich in total salinity
(determined by the amount of total dissolved solids), which
is readily leachable through soil and into groundwater.
Crops grown on fields that are fertilized with manure
may consume a limited amount of that salinity. Salinity
leaching out of the root zone into groundwater is not
subject to any degradation or sorption.

For example, leaching losses of 50 kg/ha nitrate-nitrogen PATHOGENS

per year in a location with 250 mm annual recharge
potentially leads to a nitrate concentration of 89 mg/L
in recharge water. The limit in drinking water set by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 45 mg/L.
PHOSPHORUS
Phosphorus is not a concern with respect to the
use of groundwater as drinking or irrigation water.
It is only a significant concern, where groundwater
Pathogens are ubiquitous in animal waste, but soils
provide a significant buffer against groundwater pollu-
tion. In the subsurface, pathogens become entrained in
dead-end pores, are collected via filtration onto grain
surfaces, or chemically interact with the grain surfaces
of the soil/aquifer material. Over time, pathogens die off
(‘‘inactivation’’). However, where soils and shallow ground-
water sediments have large pores (sandy soils, sandy and
gravelly aquifer sediments, highly fractured rocks, and
finely textured soils with macropores), pathogens travel
540 AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCERS
significant distances in relatively short periods of time.
Frequent detections of total coliform concentrations in
shallow groundwater underneath AFOs are the result of
limited pathogen filtration capacity in the soil or unsatu-
rated zone that overlies the groundwater. Shallow wells,
often small domestic supply wells, in the immediate vicin-
ity of the AFO are most likely to be affected.
PHARMACEUTICALS (ANTIBIOTICS AND HORMONES)
Only recently, analytical methods have been established
that are sensitive enough to detect these pharmaceutical
compounds in water resources. They occur in significant
concentrations in the inflow to and discharge from
wastewater treatment plants, in surface water, and they
are also present in animal manure. Research on the fate
of these organic compounds in the subsurface is still in
its infancy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Service. (1996). Agricultural Waste Management Field
Handbook. U.S.D.A., Washington, DC.
2. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. (2004). Standard
X384.2: Manure Production and Characteristics. ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI (also available on the web: http://www.asae.org).
AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR
PRODUCERS
SHULIN CHEN
BILL JOHNSON
BRIT JOHNSON
QIANG PAN
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
INTRODUCTION
Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector of agriculture
in many parts of the world because of the healthy
nature of seafood, the increasing demands on protein
worldwide, and the reduction of ocean catch. According
to FAO statistics (1), aquaculture’s contribution to global
supplies of fish, crustaceans, and molluscs continues to
grow, increasing from 3.9% of total production by weight
in 1970 to 27.3% in 2000. Worldwide, the aquaculture
sector has increased at a rate that exceeds that of any
other agriculture sector, with an average compounded
rate of 9.2% per year since 1970 compared with only
1.4% for capture fisheries and 2.8% for terrestrial farmed
meat production systems. In 2000, the reported total
aquaculture production was 45.7 million tons by weight
and $56.5 billion by value with 10.1 million tons and $5.6
billion of the value coming from aquatic plants. More than
half of the total world aquaculture production in 2000
was finfish, although growth in the other major species
groups continues to be rapid with no apparent slowdown
in production to date.
In the United States, the National Aquaculture Act
of 1980 established a national policy ‘‘to encourage the
development of aquaculture,’’ which was then followed
by the development of the Aquaculture Research and
Development Strategic Plan by the Joint Subcommittee
on Aquaculture. To develop a globally competitive U.S.
aquaculture industry, the plan calls for (1) improving the
efficiency of U.S. aquaculture production, (2) improving
aquaculture production systems, and (3) improving the
sustainability and environmental compatibility of aqua-
culture production.
The major limitations to the development of aquacul-
ture in many regions are availability of water resources
and environmental impact. Water is critical to aquatic ani-
mals, for it both serves as the medium that supplies the
required oxygen and creates the physical environment that
allows for movement of the animals. As world population
has grown and industries have increased their production
to meet the demands of the growing population, water
has become a scarce resource that has had many con-
flicting demands placed upon it. Consequently, the major
strategy for increasing aquaculture production with this
limited water resource is production intensification. As
fish biomass density increases, however, the amount of
oxygen dissolved naturally in water becomes limited, thus
necessitating supplemental aeration and oxygenation. In
addition, the increased use of artificial feed as a means to
developing a high density culture system leads to water
pollution that stems from the facts that aquatic animals
cannot completely utilize the feed and that the animals
will excrete other metabolic products such as ammonia
that are toxic to the aquatic animals at elevated lev-
els. Internally, the waste produced deteriorates the water
quality and makes the water unsuitable for fish to live
in, while externally, discharge of the polluted water, if
not properly managed, may lead to adverse effects on the
environment.
Water uses and environmental impacts of different
aquaculture operations can vary significantly because of
the extremely diverse natures of the aquaculture systems
and their associated technologies. In contrast to terrestrial
farming systems, where the bulk of global production is
based on a limited number of animal and plant species,
more than 210 different farmed aquatic animal and plant
species were reported in 2000 (1). This great diversity
reflects the large number of aquatic species that are readily
adaptable to the wide range of production systems and
conditions present in the different countries and regions
of the world. Here, we limit our scope to major freshwater
systems for finfish production, namely, ponds, raceways,
recirculating systems, and cage culture, as these system
are predominant in production aquaculture.
POND SYSTEMS
Description
Ponds account for the majority of aquaculture production
worldwide (2). In the simplest terms, a pond is an earthen

or concrete impoundment that holds water. Water is
generally not passed through the system and therefore
water is normally only required to fill the pond and
replace that which is lost to evaporation and seepage (2).
Pond culture is practiced worldwide with it being the
predominant system employed in Asia (3), where it totals
over 287,400 tons of fish processed. Pond production of
channel catfish is the largest single aquaculture enterprise
in the United States (4).
Regardless of the species cultured, ponds can be
classified by construction method, by location, and by
use (2). Typical construction classifications are levee
ponds, watershed ponds, hybrid ponds, marsh ponds,
beach ponds, and intertidal ponds. Levee ponds are
constructed by removing the soil from the area that
will become the pond bottom and require a source of
pumped water to fill and maintain the pond (5). Watershed
ponds are built in hilly areas through the damming of a
watercourse and obtain their water from the surrounding
watershed. Hybrid ponds usually consist of two or three
levees across a shallow drainage basin, which provides
the majority of water for the pond, but they also require
a source of pumped water to meet their needs (5). Marsh
ponds in coastal areas are constructed with levees above
ground level. Water salinity ranges from fresh to saline
and filling and draining are usually done by pumping,
although some marsh ponds have weirs to allow tidal
waters to move in and out (2). Beach ponds are more
prominent in Asia and are constructed on the shore
in sandy locations where seepage is often a problem.
Concrete or plastic may be used to avoid seepage problems
and water ranging in salinity from brackish to saline
is usually pumped with some ponds having weirs to
allow for tidal flushing (2). Intertidal ponds are located
just off shore in a location where a cove or bay may
be blocked off with either a levee or net. Levees are
often constructed out of coral rubble or rocks. The levee
is designed so as to confine the cultured species while
allowing for water exchange through tidal fluctuation (2).
Examples of use classifications are broodstock pond,
fingerling pond, and food-fish production pond. Each of
the use classifications may be employed with any of the
aforementioned construction classifications.
Pond Effluent and Its Constituents
Water is discharged from ponds for several reasons.
First, unintentional discharge may occur due to rain if
inadequate storage capacity is provided. Second, ponds
may be drained either completely or partially during
harvesting activities. Lastly, water may be discharged
during flushing of the pond in an attempt to improve water
quality or as a disease treatment (5). Effluent volume is
a factor of pond use as pond drainings vary with use.
In the U.S. channel catfish industry, broodstock ponds are
drained every 1–5 years while fingerling ponds are drained
annually and food-fish production ponds vary between 1
and 20 years (5).
Constituents of aquaculture ponds that may affect
the receiving water body include solids, organic matter,
nutrients, pH, dissolved oxygen, and toxic chemicals (5).
Suspended solids (mainly phytoplankton cells) may be
AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCERS 541
deposited in the receiving water and possibly lead to
changes in benthic invertebrate and fish populations due
to alterations in the biological oxygen demand (BOD).
However, the BOD in aquaculture effluents is usually
relatively low and is expressed over a longer time period
than most wastewaters (6).
Properly managed pond cultures operate within the
limits imposed by natural processes within the pond and
make it possible to operate them with minimal impact
on the environment (5). The fate of nutrients within a
pond is of extreme importance to fish culture. In fact,
simple mass balances show that with the above noted
limited water exchange in ponds, concentrations of waste
products would build to levels that could kill fish.
Waste products such as nitrogen and phosphorus
generated by fish can be estimated by calculating the
quantity of nutrients added to the pond through feed
and so on, then subtracting the amount recovered when
the fish are harvested. Unfortunately, organic matter is
more difficult to calculate. Carbon may be retained by
the fish, respired as carbon dioxide, or lost in waste
products. In 1988, empirical values for organic matter
generation in fecal solids were determined by Henderson
and Bromage (7) to be between 0.3 and 0.7 kg/kg of
feed. Two to four times more organic matter is produced
within a pond due to phytoplankton growth from inorganic
nutrients in fish waste than would be calculated solely as
fish waste (8).
Luckily, natural biological, chemical, and physical pro-
cesses known in limnology and waste water engineering
take place within the pond, which remove much of the
waste products from the water (5). In fact, after several
years of production, catfish ponds average 6 mg/L total
nitrogen, 0.5 mg/L total phosphorus, and 75 mg/L organic
matter, which is 25%, 10%, and 10%, respectively of the
expected values calculated by a mass balance over just a
single year (5). Nutrient and organic levels never reach the
levels predicted by simple mass balance calculations due to
the following processes: nitrogen is lost from the water as
a gas through denitrification and ammonia volatilization
and as particulate organic matter settles to the bottom and
decomposes; phosphorus is lost to pond soils as precipitates
of calcium phosphate and particulate organic phosphorus;
and additionally, microbial processes are continuously oxi-
dizing organic matter within the pond (5).
Levels of dissolved oxygen, pH, or toxic chemicals
within aquaculture pond water have been shown to have
little effect on the receiving water body (5). In a stream
study, dissolved oxygen concentrations were found to
be higher downstream from catfish ponds compared to
upstream levels (9). Pond water pH fluctuations beyond
equilibrium levels of 6.5–8.5 are due to biological
activity of phytoplankton, which usually does not coincide
with discharge (10). Equilibrium pH will be quickly
reestablished due to dilution, reactions with the receiving
waters buffer system, and/or reaeration that will equalize
dissolved carbon dioxide concentrations and moderate
the pH (5). Pesticides and therapeutants used in pond
culture must be EPA-approved chemicals and are used
infrequently due to the expense of treating large volumes
of water. Additionally, long residence times and intense
542 AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCERS
microbial activity within the pond allow chemicals to be
dissipated prior to discharge (5).
Pond Operation and Management
It is expected that regulatory programs in several nations
will be implemented based on best management practices
(BMPs) (11). Effluent management within the context of
pond aquaculture poses a difficult challenge for monitoring
and treatment due to infrequent discharges and high
volumes of a dilute nature. Recommendations on BMPs
that are being made to the pond-raised catfish industry (5)
include reducing water exchange rates, providing storage
within the ponds, using high-quality feeds and efficient
feeding practices, managing assimilative capacity within
the pond, providing adequate aeration and circulation,
positioning mechanical aerators to minimize erosion,
allowing solids to settle before discharging water, reusing
water that is drained from ponds, and using effluents to
irrigate terrestrial crops. In terms of pond construction
and renovation practices, recommended practices include
optimizing the ratio of watershed to pond area, protecting
against erosion, and providing sedimentation basins.
RACEWAY SYSTEM
Description
Flow-through (FT) aquaculture systems can be defined as
those production systems where water enters and leaves
the system without being recycled for further use. These
systems are characterized based on the type of culture
unit employed and the pattern of water flow through the
system. Culture units that have been used include ponds,
tanks, and/or flumes called raceways. The water flow, in
turn, is classified as either a single pass system or a
serial reuse system in which water flows, respectively,
through a single culture unit or several culture units
before being discharged.
Flow-through systems are typically energetically pas-
sive systems, where water flows from the farm inlet to
the outlet via gravity and aeration/reaeration occurs as a
result of hydraulic water cascades before and after the cul-
ture units. Much information is available concerning FT
production system design, construction, and use (12–16).
Currently, the most prominent flow-through system is a
serial reuse raceway system constructed of concrete.
Flow-through production systems offer several pro-
duction advantages resulting from the design. Typical
raceway culture units possess length and width ratios of
7:1 with depths generally less than 1 m. These dimensions
facilitate grading and harvesting operations as well as the
easy observation of fish (17). The continuous flow of clean
water transports waste metabolites out of the culture units
and provides dissolved oxygen needed for life support. In
most U.S. raceway operations, there is typically a quies-
cent zone at the end of the raceway for solids capture. The
quiescent zone facilitates the settling of fecal particles as
no fish is present to create disturbance. The solids accu-
mulated in the quiescent zone are removed periodically
and stored in an offline settling basin.
Aquaculture production using FT raceway systems
is common worldwide for many species of fish. In the
United States, FT systems are the second most commonly
used aquaculture production system (18). Warm, cool, and
cold water species such as catfish Ictalurus sp., yellow
perch Perca flavescens, and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus
mykiss, respectively, are cultured in FT systems. However,
coldwater fish production from government hatcheries
and the commercial production of salmonids, particularly
rainbow trout, are by far the most common uses of flow-
through aquaculture systems.
Water Use
Because no water recycling occurs in FT systems,
substantial quantities of water are utilized—more than
any other type of aquaculture production system. In
particular, the culture of coldwater fish, which are
naturally more susceptible to poor water quality conditions
and require higher dissolved oxygen concentrations than
warm and cool water species, requires substantial water
resources. However, for all practical purposes, FT system
water use is nonconsumptive and does not reduce water
availability for other uses.
Depending on farm location and the available water
resources, there is a wide range of FT total farm flow
rates, which are beneficial in understanding system water
use. For example, in the United States, rainbow trout
farm total flow rates can range from less than 1699 L/min
to 5097 × 102 L/min for the largest farm. On a per
unit production basis, typical FT systems are able to
produce 6 kg/yr of fish per 1 L/min water flow (19). Based
on these values, total water use for FT aquaculture
trout production in the United States can be estimated.
In the United States approximately 32 million kg of
trout were produced in 2000 (20). This corresponds to
a nonconsumptive cumulative water flow rate of 5.3 × 106
L/min, which is 15.5% of the consumptive water flow
rate required to supply New York City’s 9 million people
(34.1 × 106 L/min). Clearly, the magnitude of the FT flow
rate per production is directly related to the quantity of
effluent and has important implications on subsequent FT
system environmental impacts and effluent treatments.
Environmental Impact
Environmental regulations controlling FT effluent dis-
charge have been established in many regions (21–23).
Potential flow-through effluent pollutants can be grouped
into three categories: (1) pathogenic bacteria or parasites,
(2) therapeutic chemicals and drugs, and (3) metabolic
products and food wastes (17). Regulations primarily tar-
get metabolic and food wastes, although recent regulations
have begun to address the pathogenic and therapeutant
components even though evidence of the environmental
impact of the first two is limited (17).
Extensive work has been done to characterize FT
effluents and the associated environmental impacts due to
metabolic and food wastes. Flow-through effluents contain
solid and dissolved organic and nutrient pollutants.
Organic pollutants are derived from feces and uneaten
feed and are described by biological and chemical oxygen

demands, while the nutrient pollutants, nitrogen and
phosphorus, are excreted from fish gills and urine. Flow-
through effluent characterizations for locations across the
world have been summarized in several reviews (17,24).
These studies showed that effects from FT effluent
discharge are site specific and range from insignificant
to heavily impacted, although heavily impacted water
bodies are few in the United States (25). The general
insignificant impact of FT effluents on receiving waters
has been linked to the low pollutant concentrations
resulting from high system flow rates. A European
study compared FT effluents to domestic wastewater and
showed that total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(TP), total nitrogen (TN), and biological oxygen demand
(BOD) concentrations were far less, 3% or less, than
the same components in medium strength domestic
wastewater (26).
Effluent Treatment
The treatment of FT effluents is difficult due to
the dilute concentrations, high flow rates, and the
high costs of traditional treatment technologies (26).
Currently, strategies to treat FT effluent discharge
include implementing best management practices for
solid waste control (23); optimizing dietary P require-
ments to reduce excess P excretions (27); and/or utiliz-
ing mechanical screen filters, submerged biofilters, or
other effluent treatment processes (22,24). These strate-
gies have effectively lowered pollutant discharges from
many FT systems. However, the scale-up of the efflu-
ent treatment options for applications in large facilities
is still problematic with applications of many of the
best available technologies to FT effluents for solids
and nutrient control being limited by treatment effi-
ciencies and/or inhibitory treatment costs resulting from
treatment process operations and/or sizing considera-
tions (28).
NET PEN SYSTEM
Description
Net pens are commonly located in coastal waters although
they may also be found in open ocean or freshwater
ponds and lakes. Coastal net pens are usually a net bag
suspended below a floating rigid top frame. Typical net
pens of this type are 10–20 m per side at the surface
and 10 or more meters deep. Open ocean net pens are
designed with a more rigid structure and can be as large
as thousands of cubic meters in volume. Freshwater net
pens are generally relatively small rigid structures covered
by netting or wire mesh.
Until recently, freshwater net pens were the most
common form of aquaculture being utilized throughout
the world. However, this culturing technique is no longer
the dominant form for freshwater aquaculture, although
freshwater net pen culturing is becoming increasingly
popular in China. Today, its most dominant application
is coastal aquaculture with a trend toward moving
further offshore. Marine net pen aquaculture has become
progressively more intensive due to new technologies,
AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCERS 543
expansion of suitable sites, improved feeds, increased
understanding of the cultured species biology, and
increased water quality within farming systems. In some
countries, marine net pen culture is the dominant culture
method. Atlantic salmon are currently being cultured in
net pens and cages in Canada, Chili, Ireland, Japan,
Scotland, Norway, and the United States. Other species
currently being cultured in net pens throughout the world
include sea bream and sea bass in the Mediterranean Sea,
yellowtail and red sea bream in Japan, and tuna and cobia
culture is growing.
Objections to net pen culture include degradation of
the environment, disease transmission, antibiotic use,
and interaction of escapees with wild populations. Law
suits have been filed for odors, excessive noise, and even
visual pollution. Environmental impacts from intensive
aquaculture include hypernutrification (eutrophication),
benthic enrichment, increased biological oxygen demand,
and changes in the bacterial flora. Serious impacts from
net pen culture occurred in Japan in the 1990s, resulting
in changes in culture practices, and Taiwan is planning for
sustainable marine aquaculture as it moves toward cage
culture.
Water Quality
Water quality may be affected by net pen culture
due to waste metabolites released by the fish and
dissolution of nutrients from the feed and feces. Impacts
are affected by bottom topography, geography, and
hydrographic conditions and tend to be more severe if
the location chosen has poor water exchange. Net pen
culture has been practiced worldwide in both marine and
freshwater with little impact to substantial impact on
water quality.
Benthic Environment
The best-studied aspect of marine net pen culture is the
deposition of organic matter below the cages or pens.
The culturing of animals in pens or cages results in
some loss of feed and the production of feces. Uneaten
feed and feces may accumulate under or near (usually
no more than 30 m from the edge) the net pens or
cages. Tidal flow, depth of site, composition, temperature,
and salinity of the seawater are among the factors
that influence the distribution of solids under each
site. Accumulation of uneaten feed and feces can lead
to anoxic sediments concurrent with changes in the
microbial community and possibly leading to the release
of methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. As
mentioned previously, there may or may not be links
between water quality and the benthic environment.
Therefore, those with more interest in this aspect are
directed to Mahnken, who cited a number of studies
covering nutrient dynamics and deposition with regard
to the benthic community structure.
Methods of Reducing Impacts
As in other forms of aquaculture, methods to reduce the
impact of aquaculture have been studied and proposed.
Utilization of specifically formulated feeds and improving
544 AQUACULTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR PRODUCERS
feeding efficiency have been recommended to reduce
the amount of waste produced in both the water and
benthic environment. Another approach, which has been
successful in Switzerland, is to diaper the cages or
net pens. The most common approach to dealing with
waste accumulation is the proper placement of farms.
This is leading to more farms being sited in open
water with better flushing rates and ability to naturally
assimilate nutrients.
RECIRCULATING SYSTEM
Description
Recirculating systems are aquaculture systems in which
the majority of water is treated or conditioned continuously
for repeated use. One of the major advantages of
recirculating systems is that a high density of fish biomass
can be kept at optimum temperatures. The recirculating
system is a relatively new technology that has been
developed in the last two decades. There are various
designs for recirculating aquaculture systems. An effective
recirculating system will usually include a culture tank,
an aeration or oxygenation system, a biofilter, and a
suspended solids removal unit. The biofilter provides a
medium for aerobic bacteria to break down organic fish
waste and to convert excreted toxic ammonia into nitrate.
Some systems will include additional treatment units such
as disinfection.
Water Use
In a recirculating system, the water is processed
continuously to guarantee optimum growing conditions.
Water is pumped into the tanks through mechanical and
biological filtration systems and disinfection systems and
then returned into the tanks. Two terms that are often
used in relation to recirculating systems are recirculation
rate and water exchange rate. Recirculation rate (turnover
time) is the amount of water per unit of time pumped out
of the tank, through the biofilter, and back into the tank.
This can easily be determined by dividing the volume
of water in the tank by the capacity of the pump (in
gallons per minute). An increase in recirculation rate will
increase the number of turnovers per day in the culture
tank and thereby provide reduced ammonia levels. Most
production recirculation systems are designed to provide
at least one complete turnover per hour (24 cycles/day).
Exchange rate refers to the amount of water replaced per
day. Most recirculating systems recommend 5–10% water
exchange rate per day depending on the sensitivity of the
species to water quality, stocking density, and feeding
rates. The major consumption of water in recirculating
systems is associated with the removal of solids such
as backwashing the particulate filter or biofilters, while
another major consumption derives from the need to
replace evaporative loss.
Water Treatment
An excellent culture environment for fish is cru-
cial. In the recirculating systems, the major unit
operations to consider for the maintenance of a
good environment are ammonia removal/conversion and
solids removal.
In respect to solids removal, waste solids, including
uneaten feed and by-products of fish metabolism, have
to be removed as quickly as possible. Left in the system,
the solids could generate additional oxygen demand and
produce carbon dioxide and ammonia nitrogen when
undergoing bacterial decomposition. Solids removal is
generally accomplished by the use of settlement, screen
filters, or granular media filter such as bead filters or
sand filters.
The most critical nonsolids water quality parameter
is ammonia nitrogen. Ammonia is a principal excretory
product of fish metabolism and in its un-ionized form
is highly toxic to fish. Fish will excrete about 30 g
of ammonia for each kilogram of food consumed (at
35% protein content in the feed). The most common
technique used for ammonia removal is biofiltration that
works on the principle of biological nitrification in which
ammonia is oxidized successively to nitrite and finally to
nitrate. Nitrate is much less toxic to fish, especially in
freshwater. Another process called denitrification is an
anaerobic process where nitrate is converted to nitrogen
gas. Although not normally employed in commercial
aquaculture facilities today, the denitrification process
is becoming increasingly important as stocking densities
increase and water exchange rates are reduced; resulting
in excessive levels of nitrate in the culture system (29).
Necessary conditions for nitrification are availability of
dissolved oxygen, proper pH, and adequate alkalinity in
the water. The rate of the biofiltration process is dependent
on temperature, pH, salinity, surface area of the biofilter,
and flow rate.
The types of biofilters commonly used in recirculat-
ing aquaculture systems include submerged biofilters,
trickling biofilters, rotating biological contactors (RBCs),
floating bead biofilters, and fluidized-bed biofilters. A com-
mon feature to all these biofilters is that they rely on a
‘‘fixed film’’ process in which nitrification bacteria develop
on the surface of the support material of the filter and
form an active bacterial biomass layer called biofilm. As
fish culture water flows through the surface of the film,
nutrients such as ammonia and oxygen will diffuse into
the biofilm to be utilized by the nitrifying bacteria. The
biofilm’s importance also derives from the fact that, as a
result of the bacterial attachment to a media, they are free
from the risk of being washed out from the system when
significant water exchange rate occurs.
Environmental Impact
Recirculation technology, predominantly used in land-
based operations, enables farmers to achieve high
efficiencies, providing them with greater control over the
rearing environment. With the advent of recirculation
technology for aquaculture, the incoming source water
is reused to varying degrees and undergoes various
treatment processes to ensure its purity. The farmer
thereby gains considerable control over the rearing
environment, being able to manipulate temperature,
dissolved oxygen, photoperiod, and water clarity. With

more control over water parameters, the stocking densities
can be increased, thereby allowing for greater economies
of scale. Also, greater control is gained in the separation
of uneaten feed and fecal material from the water,
thereby preventing these nutrients from entering the
downstream environment. Consequently, a recirculating
system can significantly reduce effluent volume. However,
a recirculating system cannot eliminate the production
of fish waste. Thus, as with other animal production
systems, a waste management plan is necessary for
operation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
(2002). The World State of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Available: http://www.fao.org/fi/default all.asp.
2. Avault, J.W. (1996). Fundamentals of Aquaculture, A Step-
by-Step Guide to Commercial Aquaculture. AVA Publishing,
Baton Rouge, LA.
3. Lin, C.K. and Yi, Y. (2003). Minimizing environmental
impacts of freshwater aquaculture and reuse of pond effluents
and mud. Aquaculture 226: 57–68.
4. USDA/NASS (United States Department of Agricul-
ture/National Agricultural Statistics Service). (2001). Catfish
and Trout Production. United States Department of Agricul-
ture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington,
DC.
5. Tucker, C.S., Boyd, C.E., and Hargreaves, J.A. (2002). Char-
acterization and management of effluents from warmwater
aquaculture ponds. In: Aquaculture and the Environment
in the United States. J.R. Tomasso (Ed.). U.S. Aquaculture
Society, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 35–75.
6. Boyd, C.E. and Gross, A. (1999). Biochemical oxygen demand
in channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus pond waters. J. World
Aquaculture Soc. 30: 349–356.
7. Henderson, J.P. and Bromage, N.R. (1988). Optimizing the
removal of suspended solids in aquaculture effluents in
settlement lakes. Aquacultural Eng. 7: 167–181.
8. Boyd, C.E. (1985). Chemical budgets for channel catfish
ponds. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 114: 291–298.
9. Boyd, C.E. et al. (2000). Environmental assessment of
channel catfish Ictalurus puntatus farming in Alabama. J.
World Aquaculture Soc. 31: 511–544.
10. Boyd, C.E. and Tucker, C.S. (1998). Pond Aquaculture Water
Quality Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
11. Boyd, C.E. (2003). Guidelines for aquaculture effluent man-
agement at the farm-level. Aquaculture 226: 101–112.
12. Burroughs, R. and Chenoweth, H. (1955). Evaluation of Three
Types of Fish Rearing Ponds. Research Report 39, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
13. Wheaton, F.W. (1977). Aquacultural Engineering. John Wiley
& Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
14. Klapsis, A. and Burley, R. (1984). Flow distribution studies
in fish rearing tanks. Part 1. Aquacultural Eng. 3: 108–118.
15. Timmons, M.B. and Youngs, W.D. (1991). Considerations on
the design of raceways. In: Aquaculture Systems Engineering.
P. Gioviannini (Ed.). American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
16. Wedemeyer, G.A. (Ed.) (2001). Fish Hatchery Management,
2nd Edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
BIOFUEL ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS 545
17. Hinshaw, J.M. and Fornshell, G. (2002). Effluents from
raceways. In: Aquaculture and the Environment in the United
States. J.R. Tomasso (Ed.). U.S. Aquaculture Society, Baton
Rouge, LA.
18. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). (1998).
Census of aquaculture.
19. Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summer-
felt, S.T., and Vinci, B.J. (2002). Recirculating Aquaculture
Systems. Northeastern Aquaculture Center Publication No.
01–002.
20. United States Trout Farmers Association. (2000). Available:
www.USTFA.org.
21. Rosenthal, H. (1994). Fish farm effluents and their control in
EC countries: summary of a workshop. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 10:
215–224.
22. Bergheim, A. and Brinker, A. (2003). Effluent treatment
for flow through systems and European environmental
regulations. Aquacultural Eng. 27: 61–77.
23. MacMillan, J.R., Huddleston, T., Woolley, M., and Fother-
gill, K. (2003). Best management practice development to
minimize environmental impact from large flow-through trout
farms. Aquaculture 226: 91–99.
24. Cripps, S.J. and Bergheim, A. (2000). Review: solids man-
agement and removal for intensive land-based aquaculture
production systems. Aquacultural Eng. 22: 33–56.
25. Sloan, D. (2001). Verification of the State Listings for the
1998 EPA 303d and 305b: Impaired Waterbodies Due
to Aquaculture. Report to the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents Task Force. National
Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators, Raleigh, NC.
26. Cripps, S.J. (1994). Minimising outputs: treatment. J. Appl.
Ichthyo. 10(4): 284–294.
27. Barrows, F.T. and Hardy, R.W. (2001). Nutrition and feeding.
In: Fish Hatchery Management, 2nd Edn. G.A. Wedemeyer
(Ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
28. True, B.J. and Chen, S. (2004). Reducing phosphorous
discharge from flow-through aquaculture I: facility and
effluent characterization. Aquacultural Eng.
29. Timmons, M.B. Ebeling, J.M., and Wheaton, F.W. (2002).
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, 2nd Edn. Cayuga Aqua
Systems, Ithaca, NY.
BIOFUEL ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS
LUCAS REIJNDERS
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
INTRODUCTION
Our species has been exclusively dependent on biomass
for fuel during most of its existence. The use of coal and
mineral oil emerged due to the scarcity of biofuels (1). By
now, the world energy market, which supplies a yearly
energy consumption of about 400 × 1018 joule (J), is dom-
inated by fossil fuels. Still, about 14% of yearly world
fuel consumption is based on biofuels (2,3). Most of this
consumption is similar to the use before the Industrial
Revolution and is located in the countryside of develop-
ing countries. It is often associated with poor indoor and
outdoor air quality. Negative impacts on soils, on the
546 BIOFUEL ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS
availability of groundwater, and on water for generat-
ing hydroelectricity have also been linked to biofuels in
developing countries (4–6).
Against this background, it may be somewhat surpris-
ing to see increased advocacy for biofuels. This concerns
mainly ‘‘modern biomass’’: biofuels applied while using
advanced conversion technology to generate electricity and
heat and for automotive power (7).
There are several main drivers behind the increased
advocacy for biofuels. First, there are efforts to become
less dependent on mineral oil, driven by concerns about
energy scarcity, political instability in the Middle East,
and oil price shocks. A second driver is environmental
concern. Some applications of biofuels result in lower
emissions of such pollutants as hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. It has
also been argued that in combusting biofuels, one simply
puts back into the atmosphere carbon dioxide (CO2 ) that
has been recently fixed by photosynthesis, thus ensuring
climate neutrality, in contrast to the combustion of fossil
fuels which puts CO2 in the atmosphere that was fixed
many millions of years ago. The need to find an outlet for
agricultural surpluses has also been conducive to biofuel
advocacy.
Advocacy and also actual combustion of ‘‘modern
biomass’’ are increasing. A major application is the use
of ethanol and to a lesser extent fatty acid methylester
as fuel in motorcars. Ethanol is used mainly in Brazil,
North America, and the European Union (EU). In Brazil,
sugarcane is the major feedstock for ethanol production,
and in the EU and North America, the main feedstock
for ethanol is starch from grains. The use of biomass for
modern electricity and heat production is mainly on the
increase in the European Union. Expansion of biomass-
based waste incineration, cocombustion of biomass in
coal-fired power plants, and energetic use of residual
biomass by industry contribute significantly to this trend.
Here the implications of modern biomass use that
are relevant for water are discussed. Some of these
implications are direct. By clear felling forests for the
supply of biomass, there can be a major direct impact
on surface water, such as changes in peak flows and
runoff. Other implications are indirect. The extent to
which modern biomass influences atmospheric levels of
greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 (methane) is a
determinant of climate change and this in turn influences
the biogeochemical water cycle. Current climate change
leads among other things to sea level rise (that in turn may
lead to increasing intrusion of saltwater) and an increase
in land surface precipitation of 0.5–1%/decade in mid- and
high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, whereas there
is a decrease of such precipitation in subtropical land
areas of 0.3%/decade (8). Due to climate change, there
may be changes in water erosion, seasonal river flows, and
groundwater tables; impacts on biological activity; and the
presence of species in water. Increasing temperatures also
increase human freshwater use (9).
In this article, we deal with the following questions:
— Is the use of biofuels ‘‘climate neutral’’?
— What is the impact of biofuels on (fresh) water use?
— What is the impact of biofuels on substance flows
that may impact water?
ARE BIOFUELS ‘‘CLIMATE NEUTRAL’’?
To answer the question whether biofuels are ‘‘climate
neutral,’’ a life cycle perspective on biofuel combustion
is necessary. Such a perspective includes all stages of
the biofuel life cycle. For instance, if trees from forests
are used as biofuel, the cycle starts with the seed and
ends with the postharvesting fate of the forest. The main
matters to consider in establishing the impact of the
biofuel life cycle on climate are the input of fossil fuels
during the life cycle and the impact of the biofuel life cycle
on biogenic carbon stocks. Both influence atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 .
One should also consider the fate of compounds containing
nitrogen (N) in the biofuel life cycle. Such compounds may
be partly converted into the potent greenhouse gas N2 O
(dinitrogen oxide). This aspect tends to be less important
than the impact on atmospheric gases containing carbon,
but may still be significant in agricultural production
of biofuels.
Because the use of fossil fuels is so dominant in
worldwide energy consumption, it is not surprising that
usually there is an input of fossil fuels in the biofuel life
cycle. Quantitatively, such inputs vary widely depending
on the kind of biofuel and its actual production. For
instance, in forest-derived biofuels, the input of fossil fuels
is usually 5–10% of the energy value represented by the
biofuel (output). This gives an ‘‘output to input energy
ratio’’ of 10–20, meaning that the biofuel can supply 10–20
times the equivalent of the input of fossil fuels in the
biofuel life cycle. In animal meal that is cocombusted with
coal in a number of European power plants, the output to
input energy ratio is about 0.24 (10). Table 1 gives output
to input energy ratios for several biofuels.
This table shows, among other things, that for ethanol
from U.S. corn, there is no agreement on the energy ratio.
The underlying disagreements result in part from different
estimates of the actual fossil fuel inputs in the biofuel life
cycle. When corn is used to produce the biofuel ethanol,
there are also coproducts, such as cattle feed. In this
case, the allocation of fossil fuel input to the different
outputs (products) arises. One possibility is to allocate
all fossil inputs to the biofuel. Another possibility is to
divide the fossil fuel inputs by the products involved.
Such an allocation may be done in different ways, for
instance, based on a monetary or on an energy basis,
and these different ways lead to different outcomes. For
ethanol produced from corn in the United States, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (12) has argued that the biofuel
energy output to fossil fuel energy input ratio is currently
1.3, whereas Pimentel (13) calculates an output to input
energy ratio of 0.58–0.74, depending on the allocation to
ethanol and its coproducts.
However, notwithstanding this disagreement, one may
conclude that when ethanol is produced from U.S. corn
starch, the input of fossil fuels is at least a large share of
the energy output from the biofuel. A similar conclusion
can, for instance, be drawn regarding oil-methylesters

Table 1. Ratios of Current Energy Output to Fossil Fuel
Input for the Life Cycles of a Number of Biofuelsa
Ratio of Energy
Output to Fossil
Type of Biofuel and Application Fuel Input
Forest derived (short transport distances), 10–20
for electricity production
Ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane (bagasse ∼7
as production fuel), transportation fuel
Ethanol enzymatically produced from woody ∼4
crops, transportation fuel
Chicken manure (energetic allocation) ∼1
produced in the European Union, for
electricity production
Ethanol from U.S. corn, transportation fuel 0.58–1.3
Animal meal produced in the European 0.24
Union for electricity production
a
References 3, 10–13.
produced from oil crops such as rapeseed, sunflower,
or soybean (14). More in general, one can conclude that
burning biofuels is not only a matter of giving back to
the atmosphere carbon that was recently fixed. Usually,
there is the added emission of fossil fuel derived carbon
compounds, such as CO2 . Especially when high-input
agricultural production is involved and when further
processing is fueled by fossil fuels, this emission tends
to be important.
A second important matter to be considered is the
effect of the biofuel life cycle on biogenic carbon stocks:
biomass and soil organic carbon (C). The last stock is
of great quantitative importance. It is currently about
three times the atmospheric stock and about four times
the stock of C in biomass. Since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution, the combustion of fossil fuels has
added an estimated 270 × 1015 g C to the atmosphere,
whereas biogenic sources (deforestation, biomass burning,
and loss of soil organic carbon) added ∼136 × 1015 g C.
Depletion of the stock of soil organic C since the
start of the Industrial Revolution is an estimated
78 × 1015 g C (15).
The biofuel life cycle can substantially reduce and
add to biogenic carbon stocks. If biofuel is produced
from deforestation and conversion into agricultural land,
large emissions of carbon containing gases from soil to
the atmosphere can occur. On the other hand, when
biofuel is produced from reforestation or conservation
tillage and the use of compost and manure, there
can be net sequestration of carbon in the soil (15). In
Table 2, this is exemplified by the life cycle emission
of 68 × 102 g CO2 /kWh, when the production of forest
derived fuel is accompanied by deforestation. The net
sequestration of 19 × 102 g CO2 /kWh is from reforestation
of agricultural land.
If we survey the relation between biofuel use and
the emission of greenhouse gases that affect climate,
it will be clear that the relation is more complicated
than ‘‘giving back’’ recently fixed carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. As Tables 1 and 2 show, net life cycle
additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere can be
BIOFUEL ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS 547
Table 2. Life Cycle CO2 Emission Factors for Several
Current Types of Power Generation in 102 g CO2 /kWha
Life Cycle Emission Factor
Type of Fuel in 102 g CO2 /kWh
Hard coal +10
Natural gas +4
Forest derived biofuel −19–+68
a
Reference 3.
larger than that from combusting an equivalent amount
of fossil fuel.
THE IMPACT OF BIOFUELS ON (FRESH) WATER USE AND
WATER AVAILABILITY
The replacement of forests by plantations or annual biofuel
crop production may lead to a decrease in available
water due to increased drainage and increases in peak
flows and storm flows. Soil degradation from clear felling
of forests may lead to insufficient replenishment of
groundwater reserves and increased peak and storm
flows (16,17).
Water is also an important resource in biofuel
production. Fast growing woody crops such as poplar
and eucalyptus use relatively much water. For instance,
Tuskan (18) has calculated that in the United States
hybrid poplar requires roughly 1 meter/hectare yearly of
(ground) water during midrotation. In southern China,
it has been found that under comparable conditions,
water tables under eucalyptus plantations were 50 cm
lower than under mixed forests (19). Water use for biofuel
crops may be expected to increase when temperatures
rise (20).
Although there are some waterlogged areas where large
uptakes of water by energy crops can be considered
a benefit, it will be more common that water can
be a limiting factor in biofuel production. Currently,
in nearly 80 countries that have 40% of the world
population, water demands already exceed additions to
stock (21), and such countries are unlikely to embark
on major energy crop production programs. In countries
that currently have surplus water, if compared with
demand, limitations may also emerge. For instance, in
Ethiopia where eucalyptus is grown for biofuel production,
competition between food crops and eucalyptus for scarce
water resources has led to restrictions on the latter (4).
Berndes (22) has pointed out that large-scale biofuel
production countries such as Poland and South Africa
may face absolute water scarcity, resulting in lowering of
water tables.
Judicious choice of biofuel crop may limit water use. C4
biofuel crops generally use water more efficiently than C3
crops (22). Water efficiency may also be improved by some
types of agroforestry, reducing runoff, direct evaporation
of water, and drainage (17,23).
BIOFUEL SUBSTANCE FLOWS THAT MAY IMPACT WATER
The biofuel life cycle mobilizes large amounts of sub-
stances. When biofuels are produced by agriculture (e.g.,
ethanol made from starch or sugar), higher inputs of
548 BIOFUEL ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS
sediments, nutrients, and pesticides in water accompany
increased agricultural land use. Such increases may also
be large because land requirements may be large. If, for
instance, the United States were to decide to cover cur-
rent U.S. gasoline consumption by corn-based ethanol
fuels, more land would be needed than current total U.S.
cropland (11).
When biofuels are derived from tree plantations,
erosion may be much increased. Studies of plantation
forestry on slopes has shown that, especially in the
planting and timber harvesting phase, erosion can be
extensive, giving rise to silting of lakes and reservoirs and
channel instability downstream (24). The sequestration
of minerals may be reduced by clear felling, leading to
increased levels in surface water (25).
Another matter for concern in tree plantations is the
use of plant nutrients to stimulate biomass production.
High productivity is strongly linked to large inputs
of plant nutrients containing K (potassium), N, and P
(phosphorus), and to poor efficiencies in output (nutrients
in biofuel) to input ratios (16,26). This may lead to major
nutrient losses to water.
The actual impact of biomass production, of course,
strongly depends on the measures taken to limit such
impacts. Woodlands generating yearly, on average, 3 met-
ric tons of woody biomass per hectare will lose much less
nutrients and soil than high productivity plantations (27).
In the agricultural production of biofuels, conservation
tillage, applying crop residues, terracing, and other provi-
sions to trap sediment, reduce fertilizer application, and
minimize hydrologic changes may limit impact.
The combined life cycle emissions of acidifying sub-
stances such as NOx and SO2 are for biofuels of the same
order of magnitude as the corresponding emissions from
fossil fuel life cycles (28–30). The generation of persis-
tent organic pollutants such as chlorinated dioxins and
benzofurans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is not
less than that from fossil fuels (31,32). The mobilization of
heavy metals and other hazardous elements may be sub-
stantial. In Denmark, for instance, the application of fly
ash originating in the combustion of wood and straw to soil
is banned because of its cadmium content (33). Klee and
Graedel (34) have compiled a survey of elements in coal
and the average concentration in dry plant material. Sig-
nificant differences emerge from this survey. For a number
of hazardous substances, including Hg, As, Pb, Cr, and Ni,
concentrations in biomass are lower. On the other hand,
there are also elements that may have an environmental
impact that have higher concentrations in biomass, such
as P, K, Co, and Cd.
The load of hazardous elements generated by biomass
combustion may be much increased when such elements
are added to biomass during its stay in the economy.
Examples are the treatments of wood with chromated
copper and arsenic salts or metaborates for conservation.
When wastes of such treated woods are burned as biomass
especially the level of hazardous elements in ash is
elevated. Sewage sludge that is combusted as biomass
is another case in point.
Again actual impacts will depend on the measures
taken. For instance, state-of-the-art use of desulfurization
and de-NOx technology will strongly limit acidification
risk for poorly buffered surface waters. And indefinite
containment of hazardous elements in ashes will better
protect ground- and surface water than application of
ashes to soils or the use of settling ponds for ashes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pomeranz, K. (2002). Political economy and ecology on the
eve of industrialisation: Europe, China and the global
conjuncture. Am. Hist. Rev. 107: 425–446.
2. Minnen, J.G., van Ierland, E.C., and Nabuurs, J. (2003). Ter-
restrial carbon sinks and biomass. In: Issues in International
Climate Policy. E.C. van Ierland, J. Gupta, and M.F.J. Kok
(Eds.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
3. Reijnders, L. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2003). Choices in
calculating life cycle emissions of carbon containing gases
associated with forest derived biomass. J. Cleaner Prod. 11:
527–532.
4. Jagger, P. and Pender, J. (2003). The role of trees for the
sustainable management of less-favored lands: The case of
eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Forest Policy Econ. 5: 83–93.
5. Akinbami, J., Salami, A.T., and Siyanbola, W.O. (2003).
An integrated strategy for sustainable forest-energy-
environment interactions in Nigeria. J. Environ. Manage.
69: 115–128.
6. Ludwig, J. et al. (2003). Domestic combustion of biomass
fuels in developing countries: A major source of atmospheric
pollutants. J. Atmos. Chem. 44: 23–37.
7. Goldemberg, J. and Coelho, S.T. (2004). Renewable energy-
traditional biomass vs modern biomass. Energy Policy 32:
711–714.
8. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2001).
Climate Change: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Levin, R.B. et al. (2002). U.S. drinking water challenges in the
twenty-first century. Environ. Health Perspect. 110: 43–52.
10. Reijnders, L. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2005). Life cycle emis-
sions of greenhouse gases associated with burning animal
wastes in countries of the European Union. J. Cleaner Prod.
13: 51–56.
11. Kheshgi, H.S., Prince, R.C., and Marland, G. (2000). The
potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate
change: Focus on transportation fuel. Annu. Rev. Energy
Environ. 25: 199–244.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2002). Economic Report 814.
Washington, DC.
13. Pimentel, D. (2004). Ethanol fuels: Energy balance, economics
and environmental impacts are negative. Nat. Resour. Res.
12: 127–134.
14. Venturi, P. and Venturi, G. (2003). Analysis of energy
comparison for crops in European agricultural systems.
Biomass and Bioenergy 25: 235–255.
15. Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate
change. Geoderma (in press).
16. Perry, D.A. (1998). The scientific base of forestry. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 29: 435–466.
17. Ong, C.K. et al. (2002). Tree-crop interactions: Manipulation
of water use and root function. Agric. Water Manage. 53:
171–186.
18. Tuskan, G.A. (1998). Short rotation woody crop supply
systems in the United States: What do we know and what do
we need to know? Biomass and Bioenergy 14: 307–315.

19. Zhou, G.Y. et al. (2003). Hydrological impacts of reafforesta-
tion with eucalyptus and indigenous species: A case study in
southern China. Forest Ecol. Manage. 167: 209–222.
20. Brown, R.A. et al. (2000). Potential production and environ-
mental effects of switchgrass and traditional crops under
current and greenhouse-altered climate in the central United
States: A simulation study. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 78:
31–47.
21. Quadir, M. et al. (2003). Agricultural water management in
water-starved countries. Challenges and opportunities. Agric.
Water Manage. 62: 165–185.
22. Berndes, G. (2002). Bioenergy and water—the implications
of large scale bioenergy production for water use and supply.
Global Environ. Change 12: 253–271.
23. Droppelmann, K.J., Lehmann, J., Ephrath, J.E., and Berliner,
P.R. (2000). Water use efficiency and uptake patterns
in a runoff agroforestry system in an arid environment.
Agroforestry Syst. 49: 223–243.
24. Stott, T. and Mount, H. (2004). Plantation forestry impacts
on sediment yields and downstream channel dynamics in the
UK: A review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 28: 197–240.
26. Felker, P. and Guevarra, J.C. (2003). Potential commercial
hardwood forestry plantations in arid lands—an economic
analysis of Prosopis lumber production in Argentine and the
United States. Forest Ecol. Manage. 186: 271–286.
27. Pimentel, D. et al. (2002). Renewable energy: Current and
potential issues. Bioscience 52: 1111–1120.
28. Faaij, A. et al. (1998). Externalities of biomass based
electricity production compared with power generation from
coal in the Netherlands. Biomass and Bioenergy 14: 125–147.
29. Annalamai, K. et al. (2003). Cofiring of coal and cattle feedlot
biomass fuels. Fuel 82: 1195–2000.
30. Makareviciene, V. and Janulis, P. (2003). Environmental
effect of rapeseed oil methyl ester. Renewable Energy 28:
2395–2403.
31. Wunderli, S. et al. (1996). Levels and congener pattern of
PCDD/PCDF in fly ash and bottom ash from waste wood and
natural wood burned in small to medium sized wood firing
facilities in Switzerland. Organohalogen Comp. 27: 231–236.
32. Johansson, I. and van Bavel, B. (2003). Levels and patterns of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in incineration ashes. Sci.
Total Environ. 311: 221–231.
33. Pedersen, A.J. (2003). Characterisation and electrodialytic
treatment of wood combustion fly ash for removal of cadmium.
Biomass and Bioenergy 23: 447–458.
34. Klee, R.J. and Graedel, T.E. (2004). Elemental cycles: A
status report on human and natural dominance. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. (in press).
SOIL CONSERVATION
R.J. RICKSON
M. MCHUGH
R.P.C. MORGAN
Cranfield University
Silsoe, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
Soil is a precious natural resource, which performs many
vital functions. As a growing medium, soil provides nutri-
ents, air, and water to sustain life on earth, supporting
SOIL CONSERVATION 549
global agricultural and manufacturing industries with
renewable raw materials, enabling sustainable economic
growth and prosperity. As a habitat, soil is an essential
gene reservoir, maintaining a healthy biodiversity that
enables micro- and macroorganisms to adapt successfully
to environmental changes. Soil influences our natural and
cultural landscapes by providing the foundation and raw
materials for infrastructure, thus affecting the aesthetics
of the world around us. Soils have enormous storage capac-
ity, absorbing surface water, which helps to reduce flooding
risk, and providing water supplies for agricultural, domes-
tic, and industrial demands. Soil filters the water passing
through it, and chemical transformations help neutralize
potentially harmful substances. Soils also store nutrients,
trace elements, and organic carbon. Soils are essential in
the sequestration of carbon and in the absorption, storage,
and reflection of solar energy—important processes that
influence global climate and climate change.
Soil formation rates are very low, roughly equivalent to
0.1 mm · y−1 in temperate regions (1). With such limited
rates of renewal, soil should be treated as a nonrenewable
resource, which must be protected and conserved so that
the functions of the soil, as listed above, can be maintained
for future generations.
THE NEED FOR SOIL CONSERVATION
Soil conservation aims to prevent degradation of the soil
resource. Such degradation occurs when one or more
of the functions described above are impaired, either
through in situ changes in soil properties, such as loss
of soil organic carbon or depletion of nutrients, or through
physical loss of the soil through erosion. As the latter
process is irreversible, emphasis on erosion control is
given here. Erosion is initiated when the kinetic energy
from running water or wind is sufficient to detach and
transport soil particles and aggregates from the soil mass.
The eroded soil is transported and some or all of it may be
deposited downslope. Often, however, the finer particles,
mainly clays and organic matter, are transported into
adjacent watercourses, where the nutrients associated
with them can cause pollution, and deposition of the soil
particles (sedimentation) can restrict water flow.
Soil conservation aims at conserving the soil properties
associated with fertility (Table 1) by preventing in situ
degradation and preventing physical loss of soil by
controlling erosion. Ideally, soil conservation should
also improve the levels of these fertility indicators to
ensure continuing soil health and functionality and to
minimize the detrimental impact of any future soil
degradation process.
SOIL CONSERVATION APPROACHES
Soil conservation techniques can be classified into
three approaches:
1. Mechanical Methods—the use of engineering struc-
tures to conserve fertility and control soil erosion.
550 SOIL CONSERVATION
Table 1. Main Components of Soil Fertility
Physical components Soil depth
Bulk density
Soil water/water holding capacity
Aggregation/soil structure
Porosity/soil air
Biological components Microorganisms
Macroinvertebrates
Soil respiration
Organic matter/carbon
Chemical components Extractable nutrients
Essential elements
Cation exchange capacity
pH
Electrical conductivity
C/N ratio
2. Agronomic Methods—the use of vegetation or
simulated vegetation to conserve fertility and control
soil erosion.
3. Soil Management Methods—the manipulation of
soil conditions to conserve fertility and control
soil erosion.
These methods are interrelated and multipurpose in
that they aim to conserve both soil fertility and
control soil erosion simultaneously. In many situations,
a single approach is insufficient on its own and several
approaches need to be combined in an integrated soil
conservation system.
Mechanical Methods of Soil Conservation
Introduction. Mechanical methods of soil conservation
are applied to control soil erosion by water. Some
techniques date back to ancient times such as terraces,
which were adopted by Phoenician, Roman, Chinese, and
Incan civilizations but are seldom used in modern times,
due to high capital and labor costs incurred in construction
and maintenance.
Types of Mechanical Soil Conservation Mea-
sures. Terraces are constructed on hill slopes where soil
conservation is needed because of erosion risk. Terraces
control soil erosion by reducing slope length and local slope
steepness, thus reducing overland flow energy to erode and
maintaining inherent soil fertility.
There are many different types of soil conservation
terrace, often developed for local environmental conditions
(e.g., the ‘‘fanya juu’’ terrace of eastern Africa). Generic
types of terrace include the channel and bench terrace.
Channel terraces are suited to slopes no steeper than 7◦
(12%) (2,3) (Fig. 1). They consist of a cut channel and a
filled ridge (constructed from the cut material), excavated
across the slope.
The distance between consecutive terraces downslope
can be determined by equations based on site condi-
tions (4,5). However, a general rule of thumb is to use
a vertical interval between terraces of 1 m. This results
in varying distances between terrace channels as the
slope gradient changes, with shorter terrace intervals on
Figure 1. Cross section of a channel terrace (http//www.fao.
org/documents).
steeper slopes. This may cause practical problems for
mechanized farming.
The terrace channel reduces slope length, and overland
flow generated between terrace channels discharges into
the channel. The size (width × depth) and gradient of
the channel across slope (usually at 1: 250 = 0.4% slope)
determine its capacity in conveying overland flow to a safe
outlet (see lined waterways below). The gentle gradient of
the channel ensures that erosion within the channel itself
does not occur.
Bench terraces are steplike structures, constructed
across slope, which prevent soil erosion by dissecting
the slope into smaller, shorter components, each with
a level or near-level bench (Fig. 2). The dimensions of the
benches depend on slope steepness, the desirable width
of cultivable land (i.e., bench width), and the acceptable
height of the steep wall of the terrace, or ‘‘riser’’ (4,5). The
construction of the level bench requires the oversteepening
of the terrace riser. To prevent the collapse of the riser, it
must be supported with stones, rocks, masonry, timber, or
simply a dense network of vegetation roots.
By concentrating and redirecting overland flow, ter-
races will change the natural hydrology, which may incur
increased risk of erosion. To avoid this, flow in the
terrace channels is directed to lined waterways, which
are designed to carry increased volume and velocity of
overland flow without causing erosion. These waterways,
ideally located in natural depressions to minimize earth
moving, are lined with dense, short vegetation, stones, or
geotextiles. These linings permit high velocity flows with-
out causing erosion. The width and depth of the waterway
are determined by the volume of overland flow and the
waterway slope and lining.
In conclusion, mechanical measures of soil conservation
control the physical loss of soil by erosion. As the soil is
kept in situ, soil fertility is also maintained.
b
a
Figure 2. Cross section of bench terraces: a—level bench;
b—riser.

Agronomic Methods of Soil Conservation
Introduction. Vegetation is highly effective at control-
ling soil erosion (6). Agronomic methods of soil conserva-
tion involve the use of vegetation to control soil erosion
and to maintain or enhance soil fertility.
Water Erosion Control. The canopy, stem, and root
components of plants interact with soil erosion processes.
A plant canopy intercepts rainfall, changing raindrop
sizes and reducing fall velocities, so that rainfall kinetic
energy available for erosion is reduced. Plant stems
distort overland flow paths and impart roughness to
the flow, reducing flow velocity and thus kinetic energy
to erode. Plant roots encourage infiltration, reducing
overland flow generation, and also increase soil shear
resistance against the shearing forces of overland flow.
These beneficial effects of vegetation have been quantified
by many workers (7–10). A fully mature, low growing,
dense vegetation cover is able to control soil loss by two or
three orders of magnitude compared to bare soil.
Agronomic methods of soil conservation apply these
principles in the field. Maximum cover on the soil surface
will protect the soil from erosive raindrops and overland
flow, absorbing their energy and thus reducing the ability
to erode. High stem and root densities reduce overland flow
volumes, velocities, and energy to erode. These effects are
achieved through cover cropping, high density planting,
crop rotations, mulching, and erosion control mats. All
of these control soil erosion and enhance soil fertility
by contributing nutrients, organic matter, and carbon to
the soil, thus encouraging microbial biomass and activity
and improving soil structure and aggregate stability. A
fertile, noneroding soil will be able to support a dense
vegetative sward with high percentage cover, stem, and
root densities, which in turn are effective at controlling
erosion and enhancing soil fertility.
Vegetation is used to reduce slope length and steepness
when grown in strips parallel to the contour. The strips
may be of different crops (strip cropping) or as a single field
strip across the slope. The strips restrict the generation
of overland flow and encourage deposition of eroded
sediment, so that local slope gradients might be reduced.
The deposited sediments are also rich in nutrients, which
are retained within the field, thus maintaining fertility
and avoiding diffuse pollution off-site.
Agroforestry systems combine erosion control and
maintenance of soil fertility (11). One common practice
is to grow perennial trees/shrubs alongside annual crops.
The trees form across-slope barriers to overland flow (also
known as ‘‘alley cropping’’), thus reducing erosion. While
the annual crops may deplete soil nutrients in the topsoil,
these can be replaced by release of nutrients assimilated
in the leaves that fall from the trees. These nutrients
come from reserves deeper in the soil by the tree roots,
so competition for nutrients between the two components
is minimal.
Wind Erosion Control. By exerting a drag on air
flow, vegetation can reduce the velocity of wind below
that required to initiate erosion and can enhance the
deposition of soil already in the air. The most common
SOIL CONSERVATION 551
use of vegetation is in the form of shelterbelts spaced
at regular intervals at right angles to the direction of
the erosive winds. Traditionally, trees have been used
to form shelterbelts but they need to be supplemented
by shrubs (bushes) and grasses to provide cover close
to the ground surface, as 70–75% of the soil eroded by
wind is carried within the lower 1 m of the atmosphere.
Modern shelterbelts are based on species of willow and
alder, both of which can be coppiced to encourage growth
close to the ground. The most important characteristic
of a shelterbelt is its density or porosity. The belt needs
to be porous so that some air passes through the belt
but at a low velocity. Clearly, if the belt is too sparse, the
velocity of the wind is not reduced. A porosity of 40–50% is
generally considered optimum. Belts are usually designed
to maintain wind speeds below 75% of the speeds recorded
over open ground. To achieve this, they need to be spaced
at intervals of between 12 and 17 times the belt height.
The principles of shelterbelts can also be used to design
in-field shelter systems in which crops are alternated on
a strip system, aligned at right angles to the prevailing
wind. Thus, strips of barley, spaced at 5–10 m intervals,
can be alternated with strips of carrots, onions, or sugar
beet to control erosion.
Since shelterbelts require a certain amount of time
to become effective, they are not appropriate where
immediate control of wind erosion is required. In these
situations, windbreaks can be made from brushwood
or plastic netting. Brushwood fences are commonly
constructed on coastal dunes to reduce wind velocities
and stabilize the mobile sand, which can then be seeded
or planted with shrubs and trees to provide long-term
stability and reclamation.
Soil Management Methods of Soil Conservation
Farming operations carried out up and down the slope
will increase the risk of overland flow generation and loss
of soil and nutrients. Changing to contour cultivations
will reduce these risks significantly, but this is not
always practical, especially on complex or steep slopes,
where the arrangement of fields on the contour makes
harvesting difficult and incurs high energy consumption.
Contour ridging creates raised ridges across slope, which
will reduce slope length an effective catchment area for
overland flow generation, and intercept any overland
flow that is generated. The across-slope ridges can be
joined together at regular intervals by ‘‘ties’’ running
up/downslope, thus creating small basins that trap any
overland flow and eroded soil, conserving both soil and
water within the ’’tied ridges.’’
The factors affecting the susceptibility of soil to erosion
can be affected by soil management methods, which can
both degrade or conserve soil. For example, intensive
arable production can lead to severe soil degradation,
as soil is broken down by numerous tillage practices
into a loose, fine tilth seedbed. The resulting small soil
aggregates are highly susceptible to erosion. Studdard (12)
and Pochard (13) showed that under conventional arable
production, there is little time between cultivations for
aggregates to reform into larger, more stable, less erodible
units. Soil structural stability is further reduced by loss of
552 SOIL CONSERVATION
carbon by oxidation as tillage exposes deeper soil layers to
the air. Soil faunal biomass, including fungal mycelia and
earthworms, is important in maintaining cohesive bonds
within and between aggregates, but it can be destroyed
during soil disturbance.
Reducing the number and/or intensity of cultivations
preserves soil structural stability and aggregation. Less
disturbed aggregates are able to resist erosive forces, as
cohesive bonds within the aggregates are maintained.
Fewer, less invasive cultivations mean more of the
vegetative biomass remains on or within the soil. This
biomass is able to absorb the energy of erosive agents,
so erosion is controlled. For example, a rough, trashy
soil surface imparts friction to overland or air flow,
causing turbulence and eddying, resulting in a reduced
flow velocity and kinetic energy to erode.
The relative reduction in soil disturbance and retention
of vegetative material on and within the soil are the
principles behind the use of ‘‘conservation tillage.’’ This
term incorporates a continuum of soil management
methods such as minimum till, zero till, mulch tillage,
direct drilling, noninversion tillage, subsurface mulch
tillage, and plough/plant cultivation (14). Conservation
tillage aims at maintaining soil fertility and controlling
erosion. It can also reduce input costs to agriculture, as
fewer, less invasive cultivations expend less energy and
fuel, resulting in dramatic adoption rates in the 1970s
in the United States during the oil crisis. It should be
noted that the success of conservation tillage is related
to soil type and timeliness of operations. For example,
there is evidence that reducing the number of cultivations
can increase bulk density on structureless soils, leading to
overland flow generation and flooding risk, which can only
be alleviated by deep subsoiling periodically. Supporters
of conservation tillage claim that these are short-term
effects, which are offset in the medium to long term
by the improvement of aggregation and inherent soil
structure resulting from increased levels of biotic activity
and organic matter levels.
Manipulation of the soil surface condition by tillage
is used to control wind erosion. On light soils such as
sands and silts, the soil is ploughed and then pressed
with a heavy roller. Drilling is then carried out at
90◦ to the plough/press operation. The resultant tilth
is rough and cloddy, to impart maximum friction to air
flow, thus reducing wind speed and ability to detach and
transport soil.
Soil conditioners are applied to soils susceptible
to degradation, especially erosion. These products can
perform the dual role of enhancing soil fertility and
controlling erosion. Products with high organic matter
(such as seaweed extract and tree bark) improve inherent
soil fertility in terms of nutrients and organic matter, thus
improving aggregation, structure, porosity, infiltration
capacity, and water holding capacity.
Hydrophilic soil conditioners including bark, limestone,
palm oil effluent, and seaweed extract increase aggrega-
tion and infiltration capacity, so overland flow is less likely
to occur. The increase in organic matter from these prod-
ucts helps control erosion by increasing cohesive bonds
Table 2. Objectives of Soil Conservation Measures in
Relation to Economic and Social Factors
1. The need for soil conservation should be recognized by all
stakeholders—farmers, local communities, landowners,
advisory services, government departments, NGOs, and
politicians.
2. Soil conservation measures must be compatible with
present and future management plans: they should not be
imposed by external bodies such as researchers, scientists,
advisory and extension services, or politicians.
3. Methods of construction will be based on available and
appropriate technology and level of education. Technology
transfer will be ‘‘bottom-up’’ not ‘‘top-down.’’
4. The easiest and minimal maintenance of soil conservation
scheme will be adopted.
5. Present infrastructure should not be radically changed by
soil conservation measures.
6. Mechanical measures should be laid out economically.
7. Crop selection will be based on economic as well as soil
conserving properties.
8. Available grants and subsidies will be used. This has been
demonstrated in the United States for many years.
Farmers are eligible for USDA farm subsidies, but only if
they demonstrate soil conservation practices have been
implemented. A similar scheme will operate in England
and Wales under the DEFRA Single Payment Scheme. To
be compliant with the scheme, farmers have to draw up a
simple risk-based soil management plan that protects
against soil erosion and maintains soil organic matter and
soil structure.
9. Conservation measures will ensure long-term productivity.
Farmers are considered ‘‘land stewards,’’ taking
responsibility for conserving the soil resource for future
generations. This concept is exemplified by the ‘‘Landcare’’
movement in Australia and New Zealand.
and the stability of aggregates. Hydrophobic soil condi-
tioners including latex, emulsions, and molasses form an
impermeable film on the soil surface, which repels water
and increases the soil’s resistance to erosion. While these
latter products control soil erosion, they have no effect on
inherent soil fertility.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADOPTION OF SOIL
CONSERVATION MEASURES
While much is known of soil conservation techniques,
they will fail unless the right social, economic, and
political conditions prevail (15). Table 2 highlights the
main considerations for the adoption and long-term
success of soil conservation measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Soil is a sustainable resource, if treated carefully and
with respect. Failing to protect and conserve soil can
lead to rapid soil degradation, which in turn can be an
irreversible process. Soil conservation can be defined as the
maintenance of soil fertility and the control of soil erosion.
These two objectives can be realized by appropriate
management of the soil resource, using diverse soil
conservation approaches. Application of these techniques

will ensure that the diverse forms and functions of soil will
be conserved for future generations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Young, A. (1998). Land Resources: Now and for the Future.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
2. Sheng, T.C. (1972). A treatment-oriented land capability
classification scheme. In: Report on the Latin American
Watershed Management Seminar. FAO No. TA3112.
3. Sheng, T.C. (1972). Bench terracing. J. Sci. Res. Council
Jamaica 3: 113–127.
4. Morgan, R.P.C. (1995). Soil Erosion and Conservation, 2nd
Edn. Longman, London.
5. Hudson, N.W. (1981). Soil Conservation, 2nd Edn. Batsford.
6. Coppin, N.J. and Richards, I.G. (1990). Use of Vegetation in
Civil Engineering. Butterworths, London.
7. Laflen, J.M. and Colvin, T.S. (1981). Effect of crop residue
on soil loss from continuous row cropping. Trans. ASAE 24:
605–609.
8. Hayes, J.C., Barfield, B.J., and Barnhisel, R.I. (1984). Perfor-
mance of grass filters under laboratory and field conditions.
Trans. ASAE 27(5): 1321–1331.
9. Babaji, G.A. (1987). Some plant stem properties and overland
flow hydraulics: a laboratory simulation. Ph.D. thesis.
Cranfield University at Silsoe.
10. Ree, W.O. (1949). Flow of Water in Channels Protected by
Vegetative Linings. USDA Technical Bulletin 967.
11. Young, A. (1997). Agroforestry for Soil Management, 2nd
Edn. CAB International in association with the International
Centre for Research in Agroforestry.
12. Stuttard, M.J. (1985). The Water Drop Test of Soil Erodibility.
Silsoe College Report, Cranfield University.
13. Pochard, L. (1986). Effects of tilth on water conservation, M.Sc.
thesis. Cranfield University at Silsoe.
14. Cogo, N.P., Moldenhauer, W.C., and Foster, G.R. (1984). Soil
loss reductions from conservation tillage practices. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 48: 368–373.
15. Stocking, M.J. and Tengberg, A. (1999). Soil conservation as
incentive enough—experiences from Brazil and Argentina.
In: Incentives in Soil Conservation From Theory to Practice.
D.W. Sanders, P.C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit, and T. Enters
(Eds.). Science Publishers, London.
LANDSCAPE WATER-CONSERVATION
TECHNIQUES
DOUGLAS H. FENDER
International Turf Producers
Foundation
Meadows, Illinois
When given information and technology, people will make
the effort to conserve. Plant selection will have less impact
on water use than either irrigation or soil preparation.
Water budgets give consumers more options and personal
choice, while providing an effective way to conserve water.
Outdoor water-conservation measures typically focus
on reducing or eliminating landscape water use. But
implementing new scientific findings and advanced
LANDSCAPE WATER-CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES 553
technology and general education can go a long way toward
achieving the same end, just as these methods have proved
successful in conserving water indoors. People will act
to conserve water and improve the environment when
properly informed of and motivated by the best scientific
knowledge and technology.
AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO CHOICE
Numerous water-use studies have documented that,
depending on an area’s climate, residential outdoor
water use can account for between 22 to 67% of
total annual water use. Clearly, this represents a
vast opportunity for conservation. But to maintain an
individual’s right to personal choice and to maximize the
positive environmental benefits of landscaping, a variety
of factors need to be addressed that take location into
account. When dealing with living plants, a one-size-fits-
all solution will not be effective. But proven advanced
scientific landscape water-conservation principles and
practices do exist, and these can be modified and refined
according to area-specific needs (Fig. 1).
THE NEED FOR CLEAR AND CAREFUL DEFINITIONS
First, however, potential targets for widespread outdoor
water conservation should be clearly and carefully defined.
Too often, a narrow definition focuses exclusively on
landscape water use. Narrow definitions often overlook
potentially high water-use elements such as swimming
pools or other water features, whose evaporative losses
are as great as or greater than those from landscape
application.
Other nonlandscape outdoor water uses include wash-
ing cars, driveways, sidewalks and siding—and even some
types of children’s water toys. In addition to conserving
in these areas, many techniques can be applied landscape
water conservation as well.
Figure 1. Rather than attempting to regulate or ban a specific
water use, the water budget technique leaves the determination
in the hands of the rate-paying water user.
554 LANDSCAPE WATER-CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES

THE WATER BUDGET PROGRAM 5. Establish or confirm soil type(s) to match

One of the most effective techniques is based on the
practice of advising people how much water they can use,
rather than telling them how they must use it. Termed
a ‘‘water budget’’ or ‘‘water allocation’’ method, water
providers establish a series of escalating allocation/pricing
tiers so that every unit of water (i.e., 1000 gallons) in excess
of a base quantity costs more than the previous unit.
Because outdoor water use can be measured and
priced higher, people adjust their end uses according
to their personal desires and financial concerns. This
approach eliminates the need for contentious public
hearings on landscape ordinances and the development of
debatable plant lists, as well as the potential for draconian
enforcement practices and so-called ‘‘water police.’’
Water budgets, for both indoor and outdoor water use,
encourage individual freedom of choice and allow artistic
expression by homeowners and landscape designers.
Rather than attempting to regulate or ban a specific
water use, this technique leaves the determination in
the hands of the rate-paying water user. As we’ve seen,
when gasoline prices rise, individuals can quickly adjust
their use patterns. The same holds true for water.
Once purveyors decide how to allocate and price water,
they then have the very important role of assisting in
the development and distribution of scientifically based
educational materials on water conservation. Again,
successful indoor conservation practices can be easily
converted to outdoor water conservation, particularly as it
relates to landscape water use.
water-infiltration rates with future water-
application rates and to determine if soil pH
adjustments are recommended.
6. Perform irrigation-system maintenance,
regardless of type (hose-end, drip, in-ground, etc.)
to ensure maximum uniformity of coverage and
overall operation. Repair or replace broken or
damaged nozzles or heads. Flush drip system
emitters to ensure proper flow. Ensure that rainfall
shutoffs and other devices are working properly.
a. Acquire and/or install hose-end water timers for
all hose bibs.
b. Adjust in-ground system controllers according
to plant’s seasonal needs.
7. Upgrade in-ground irrigation systems by
adding soil-moisture meters, rain shutoff devices,
or evapotranspiration (ET)-based controllers.
8. Relocate drip emitters, particularly around
trees, to the outer edge of their drip lines. This
will result in higher water use, but it will also
encourage a better root system that will anchor
the tree in high winds and provide the water and
nutrients that are needed by large trees, shrubs,
and other plants (Fig. 2).

The Two-Track Strategy

Moving from general to more specific landscape water-
conservation recommendations, a two-track strategy that
emphasizes different approaches for existing landscapes
and newly planned and installed landscapes may be most
effective, as follows.

Existing Landscape Areas

Predrought/Premaximum Heat-Day Practices
1. Increase water infiltration with dethatching or
hollow-core aerification of all lawn areas, as well
as under the drip line of trees. Till garden areas
to break up surface crusting, adding mulch where
appropriate. Figure 2. Locate drip emitters to provide water and nutrients
2. Trim or prune trees, shrubs, and bushes to needed by large trees, shrubs, and other plants.
remove low-hanging, broken or diseased parts and
allow greater sunlight penetration throughout and
beneath the plant. Generally speaking, plant water
use is proportional to total leaf surface; thus,
properly pruned plants should require less water.
3. Fertilize all plants (when soil temperatures reach
at least 50 ◦ F or 10 ◦ C) with a balanced plant food
that contains nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
potassium (K) according to the results of soil testing
or as experience has shown is appropriate.
4. Sharpen pruning shears and mower blades.
Dull blades encourage plant water losses and the
introduction of disease. Figure 3. Water in the early morning.

9. Confirm water-application rates for hose-end
or automatic systems to know the actual running
times required to distribute a specified amount of
water within a given amount of time.
10. Water in early morning (Fig. 3) when wind and
heat are lowest, to maximize the availability of the
water to the selected plants.
11. Irrigate all plants infrequently and deeply,
according to local ET or soil-moisture requirements,
to establish a deep, healthy root system. A core-
extracting soil probe or even a simple screwdriver
can help determine when to water if the more
sophisticated ET rates are not available (Fig. 4).
Professional turf managers gradually lengthen the
interval between irrigations to create gradual water
stress for deeper rooting.
12. Cycle irrigation applications (on-off-on-off) to
allow penetration and avoid runoff. Depending on
soil types, the running times may be from 5 to 15
minutes and off times from 1 to 3 hours. Repeat this
cycle until necessary amounts of water are applied
and maximum penetration is achieved.
13. Begin regular mowing when grass blades are
one-third higher than desired postmowing length,
and keep clippings on the lawn.
14. Raise the mowing height as the summer
progresses to the highest acceptable level to
encourage deep rooting. (Note: This has been a
traditional recommendation, but further study is
required to refine this approach and maximize
effective water use and/or conservation.)
Drought or Maximum Heat-Day Practices—to Maximize
Landscape Appearance
1. Withhold fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, on
turfgrass; however, small amounts of potassium
will aid in developing more efficient roots.
2. Reduce mowing frequency to minimize shock to
turf areas.
3. Reduce traffic on turf areas, this will minimize
wear and possible soil compaction.
4. Adjust automatic timers of in-ground irrigation
systems according to plant’s seasonally changing
water needs.
Figure 4. An example of a core-extracting soil probe.
LANDSCAPE WATER-CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES 555
Drought or Maximum Heat-Day Practices—If Dormant
Turf Appearance is Acceptable
1. Eliminate all traffic on turf areas, including
mowing, which will probably not be necessary
because of the extremely slow growth rate.
2. Adjust automatic timers to manual or use hose-
end sprinklers to apply approximately one-quarter
inch of water a week. The dormant lawn will
have a tan, golden, or light brown appearance;
however, light/infrequent watering will be sufficient
to maintain life in the crowns of the grass plant
during this period.
3. Minimize water applications for all plant mate-
rials to the essential amounts needed to maintain
plant vitality.
Postdrought or Maximum Heat-Day Practices Irrigate All
Plants to Reestablish Soil-Moisture Levels, beginning with
staged increases in watering and progressing toward
deep and infrequent watering. By gradually lengthening
the running times but adding greater spacing between
watering applications, the initially shallower roots will
extend to reach deeper soil moisture. Previously dormant
turf will recover rather quickly, and other plants will
regain their vigor.
Newly Planned or Installed Landscape Areas. Though
fewer in number than existing landscape areas, newly
planned and installed landscape areas can generally
achieve greater water savings if all of the best design,
plant selection, installation, and management practices
now available are closely observed and fully implemented.
The basic principles of xeriscape landscaping provide
an excellent starting point, providing they are fully
understood and properly applied. However, note that it
is incorrect to assume that a xeriscape is supposed to be
a totally grassless landscape or one that uses only rocks,
cactus, or driftwood.
Dr. Doug Welsh, former director of the National
Xeriscape Council, wrote in Xeriscape Gardening: Water
Conservation for the American Landscape: ‘‘In xeriscape
landscaping we try to plan the amount of turf so that the
investment in water will be repaid in use and beauty. In
many instances grass is the best choice. For play areas,
playing fields and areas for small pets, grass is often the
only ground cover that will stand up to the wear. Turf
also provides unity and simplicity when used as a design
component.’’
Rather than duplicate information contained in several
xeriscape manuals, this publication will focus on a limited
number of very critical elements that can maximize
landscape water conservation.
Efficient irrigation is without question an important
water-conservation activity. People waste water; plants
don’t. Overwatering not only wastes water, but it also
weakens or kills plants more than underwatering. Another
wasteful practice seen all too often is misapplication of
water, resulting in rotted fences and house siding, flooded
556 LANDSCAPE WATER-CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES

improve the soil may seem high, but the return on that
investment will be even higher. Failing to improve the soil
prior to planting, when it is most practical and efficient,
will result in roots not being able to penetrate as deeply
as possible and runoff occurring almost instantaneously.
If the soil pH is not correct, plants will not be healthy,
nutrients will not be used, and chemical leaching can
take place.
Appropriate plant selection can be a source of
frustration or misunderstanding and not produce the
hoped-for water savings, particularly when it is combined
with ‘‘practical turf areas.’’ Lists of low water-use
landscape plants can cause confusion because they are
based on the incorrect assumption that those plants
capable of surviving in arid regions are low water users,
when the plants typically are only drought-resistant
(Fig. 6).
Figure 5. A wasteful practice seen all too often is misapplication The majority of turfgrass species and cultivars have
of water, resulting in flooded sidewalks or driveways and rivers been scientifically assessed for their evapotranspiration
of water wastefully flowing down gutters. (water-use) rates and can be selected according to the
needs of a specific climate. On the other hand, very few
tree and shrub species and cultivars have undergone
sidewalks or driveways and rivers of water wastefully
comparable quantitative water-use assessments. One
flowing down gutters (Fig. 5).
stunning exception comes from research at the University
Though less so today, many new in-ground landscape-
of Nevada, where Dr. Dale Devitt found that ‘‘one oak tree
irrigation systems have been sold in the recent past on
will require the same amount of irrigation as 1800 square
the basis of simplicity, for example, ‘‘set it and forget it.’’
feet of low-nitrogen fertilized turfgrass!’’
Homeowners, intimidated by the sophisticated appearance
It is also important to understand that though ‘‘low
of the system’s control box, would not modify the settings
water-use’’ plant lists were developed with the best
for seasonal plant water-use changes. Even worse, to be
intentions and purposes in mind, practically all of these
cost-competitive, many systems did not include readily
lists have been based on anecdotal evidence or consensus
available and relatively inexpensive soil-moisture meters,
judgments, not scientific measurement under controlled
rain shutoff devices, or multistation programs. These
procedures. Quite simply, a given group decides that
deficiencies have resulted in overwatered landscapes,
based on their experiences and suppositions, a certain
where water runs down the streets and systems continue
to operate during torrential downpours.
Because of its high visibility, turf watering can be
seen as the antithesis of water conservation and is often
an out-and-out target for elimination. In some locales,
‘‘cash-for-grass’’ programs are used to pay homeowners
handsomely to remove grass from their landscapes. One
highly respected West Coast water official noted at a
conservation convention: ‘‘It isn’t the grass that causes
a problem, it’s the poorly designed and poorly operated
irrigation system. I can’t control the irrigation systems,
but I can reduce the amount of grass in a landscape, and
that will control the water-use problem created by bad
irrigation.’’ The fault was not the grass, but the fact that
it was being improperly watered.
Soil analysis and improvements are another very
important aspect of water conservation. The soil on
most new residential and commercial landscape sites has
literally been turned upside-down during the construction
process, and the topsoil is placed beneath a layer of clay.
Then it is compacted as hard as cement by equipment,
piles of building materials, and construction-worker foot
Figure 6. The minilysimeter gauges water use under actual turf
traffic. The soil’s texture, chemistry, and natural flora and
conditions. This photo at Washington State University’s research
fauna are destroyed. site in Puyallup, shows minilysimeters being weighed. The pots
More water could be conserved and healthy landscape are weighed for daily water evaporation, rewetted, and returned
plants more easily grown by improving the soil before to their ‘‘holes’’ in the turf. These scientific measurements
planting than by any other process or technique. The initial under controlled procedures help researchers better understand
cost of adding topsoil and soil test-guided amendments to low-water use.

plant should or should not be placed on a ‘‘low water-use’’
list. As has been seen time after time, it typically is not the
plant that wastes water, but the person who is in charge
of its care.
When establishing new lawns, turfgrass sod has
been shown to require less water than seeding; the
evaporative losses from bare soil are greater for seeded
areas than they are for turf-covered soil beneath sod
(Fig. 7).
Water ‘‘harvesting’’ and reuse is another water-
conserving practice gaining greater use. It can be
employed to conserve public water supplies and recharge
groundwater supplies.
Historically, planners and designers have focused their
efforts on moving rainwater and snowmelt away from a
property as quickly as possible, giving little thought to
the possible advantages of using that water for landscape
purposes. Consider the fact that during a 1-inch rainfall,
a 35-foot-by-60-foot roof (approximately 2000 square feet)
will collect nearly 1250 gallons of water. Rushing this
water to gutters and then sewers makes little sense when
it could conceivably go into a system that could capture or
distribute it across a landscaped area.
Another increasingly feasible source of additional
landscape water is recycled or gray water. Some
communities are installing dual water-delivery systems
where one carries potable water for drinking, cooking,
cleaning, and other general household uses and a second
system delivers less thoroughly treated (but very safe)
water for use on landscapes. On a small scale, some locales
encourage collecting a home’s gray water (from clothes
washers, etc., but not toilets) for use on landscapes.
After being applied to a landscape area, harvested,
recycled, or gray water is either transpired by plants
and evaporates into the atmosphere or finds its way into
groundwater supplies after it has been cleansed by the
plant’s root structure.
Figure 7. When establishing new lawns, turfgrass sod has been
shown to require less water than seeding.
CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS 557
As science and technology continue to advance, new
and better information, tools, and systems will become
available to help people establish and maintain water-
conserving and environmentally beneficial landscapes.
An ongoing challenge will be keeping pace with these
developments, sharing that information, and continually
improving best management practices.
Just as we improve our health by using water to
brush our teeth and to wash our bodies and clothes,
applying water judiciously to a properly designed and
installed landscape can improve our health and the general
environment.
Efforts to eliminate landscape water use not only take
away freedom of personal choice; they also bring many
environmental, economic, and emotional drawbacks that
could be more costly in the long run.
CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
MLADEN TODOROVIC
Mediterranean Agronomic
Institute of Bari
Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Crop water requirements (CWR) refer to the amount
of water required to compensate for evapotranspiration
losses from a cropped field during a specified period of
time. Crop water requirements are expressed usually
in mm/day, mm/month, or mm/season, and they are
used for management purposes in estimating irrigation
water requirements, irrigation scheduling, and water
delivery scheduling.
The concept of crop water requirements is intimately
connected with crop evapotranspiration because both refer
to the same amount of water. Nevertheless, there is
some difference between them. Crop evapotranspiration
represents the water losses that occur (i.e., a hydrological
term), but crop water requirement indicates the amount
of water that should be supplied to account for these
losses (i.e., an irrigation management term). In fact, this
amount of water corresponds to the effective irrigation
water supply necessary to reach the maximum yield.
Therefore, the estimation of crop evapotranspiration
precedes the estimation of crop water requirements
where the latter usually represents the values of
crop evapotranspiration aggregated over some period of
time. For management purposes, crop evapotranspiration
should be transformed into crop water requirements to
be used for estimating irrigation water requirements and
later, management of the irrigation water supply. Then,
crop water requirements are satisfied by the amount of
irrigation water effectively supplied to the root zone and
the effective precipitation.
The concept of crop water requirements has become
important due to the development of large engineering
works when it was necessary to estimate the water
volumes to be supplied to newly irrigated areas. In
general, it is possible to distinguish between crop water
requirements for long-term planning, where an average
558 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE) AND PRODUCTIVITY (WP)

climate or a climate with a certain probability of occur- CWRJune = KcJune ∗ EToJune ∗ 30

rence can be used for a CWR estimate, and crop water
= 0.94 ∗ 5.1 ∗ 30 = 143.8 mm/month
requirements for real-time management, where climatic
data of the ongoing season are applied. CWRJuly = KcJuly ∗ EToJuly ∗ 31
The procedures for estimating crop water requirements = 1.15 ∗ 5.8 ∗ 31 = 206.8 mm/month
correspond to those of crop evapotranspiration because
both terms refer to the same amount of water. More details CWRAugust = KcAugust ∗ EToAugust ∗ 31
of measuring and estimating crop water requirements are = 1.04 ∗ 5.6 ∗ 31 = 180.5 mm/month
given under the article on CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION of this
Encyclopedia. CWRSeptember = KcSeptember ∗ EToSeptember ∗ 6
= 0.835 ∗ 4.2 ∗ 6 = 21.0 mm/month
Example of an estimate of seasonal crop water require-
ments for tomato growing in the Mediterranean region The seasonal crop water requirements represent the
based on a planting date of April 15th and where sum of the monthly values, 656.1 mm/season.
the average monthly reference evapotranspiration val- Crop water requirements can also be estimated daily,
ues are as follows: EToApril = 3.5 mm/day; EToMay = provided that daily values of reference evapotranspiration
4.4 mm/day; EToJune = 5.1 mm/day; EToJuly = 5.8 mm/day; are available. There, Kc values can be interpolated
EToAugust = 5.6 mm/day, and EToSeptember = 4.2 mm/day. similarly, as in the previous example, or they can be
estimated using more complicated approaches (e.g., the
Calculation Procedure. Some data necessary for calcula- dual Kc approach).
tion are taken from the article on CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION Crop water requirements of one crop variety vary
of this Encyclopedia: the lengths of the growing stages from one location to another due to variations in cli-
are taken from Table 3 and Kc values from Table 4 of matic parameters and, therefore, to different reference
that article. The growing cycle of tomato can be presented evapotranspiration, different planting dates and lengths
graphically as in Fig. 1: Kc is fixed at 0.5 from April 15th of growing season, different Kc values, etc.
to May 15th, then it increases linearly until June 24th
when it reaches the value 1.15; Kc is fixed at 1.15 from
June 24th to August 7th; then it decreases linearly to 0.8 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY
on September 6th, the last day of growing cycle. Hence, (WUE) AND PRODUCTIVITY (WP)
the average monthly values of Kc are determined as fol-
lows: KcApril = 0.5; KcMay = 0.57; KcJune = 0.94; KcJuly = 1.15; PASQUALE STEDUTO
KcAugust = 1.04; KcSeptember = 0.835. Mediterranean Agronomic
Then, the crop water requirements are calculated for Institute
each month as Valenzano, Italy

CWRApril = KcApril ∗ EToApril ∗ 15

Among the different sectors of society, agriculture
= 0.5 ∗ 3.5 ∗ 15 = 26.2 mm/month represents the major water consumer. Rain-fed and
CWRMay = KcMay ∗ EToMay ∗ 31 irrigated agriculture uses water at various degrees of
efficiency, resulting in different levels of productivity.
= 0.57 ∗ 4.4 ∗ 31 = 77.8 mm/month
The general term efficiency (e) indicates the ratio
of output to input of variables (Eq. 1) associated with
transformation (e.g., of energy) or transport (e.g., of mass
August 7th
June 24th

and energy) processes:

1.4
output
e= (1)
sept. 6th

1.2
input
1
The efficiency term (e) has two peculiarities: (1) the
April 15th

May 15th

0.8 units are nondimensional and (2) the values are always
June 10th

between the theoretical limits of 0 and 1. In water use,

Kc

0.6 the efficiency (ew ) has water amounts (e.g., volumes,

quantities, or depth) in both input and output variables.
0.4 The general term productivity (p) still indicates a
Initial Development Mid Late ratio of output to input of variables, as in Equation 1,
0.2
but these output and input variables are not associated
0 with transport processes and might be associated, but not
necessarily, with a transformation process. The consequent
e

y
ay

r
ril

us

be
n

l
Ju
Ap

Ju
M

em

peculiarities of the productivity term (p) do not match

Au

pt
Se

those of the efficiency term (e), that is, the units are
Figure 1. The variation of Kc for a tomato crop during the dimensional, and the theoretical limits of 0 and 1 are
growing season. lost. In water use, the productivity term (pw ) has water
 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE) AND PRODUCTIVITY (WP) 559

amounts (e.g., volumes, quantities, or depth) only in the
input. The output, instead, generally takes the form of
quantities produced: physical (e.g., dry matter or final
yield of crops, or meat or dairy products from animal
husbandry, etc.), economic (e.g., gross income, net revenue,
etc.), or any other form.
The efficiency term ew has to do more with the way
water is used by the system, whereas pw has to do more
with the outcome from the system per unit of water it
consumes. Nevertheless, it turns out that a change in ew
is reflected in a change in pw , implying that there is a
link between ew and pw , though the reverse is not the
case. Moreover, though pw cannot be strictly defined by
Equation 1, it still resembles a sort of efficiency of the
system to produce a given output for a given input. The
undefined degree of commonality and distinction between
ew and pw has led to some confusion in investigating
agricultural water use.
A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR AGRICULTURAL WATER
USE EFFICIENCY AND WATER PRODUCTIVITY
Figure 1 illustrates a suitable framework for identifying
the efficiency (ew ) and the productivity (pw ) components
within the domain of agricultural water use. The frame-
work distinguishes irrigated from rain-fed agriculture and
splits the overall path that water ‘‘travels’’ to produce a
given yield into single segments of particular relevance
and specific boundary conditions.
In irrigated agriculture, the source of water can be
a reservoir (e.g., a dam) from which water will be
conveyed and delivered to the farm. Applying Equation 1
to the whole path from the reservoir to a cropped field
at farm level, will express the efficiency (ew ) in water
transport where the input is the outflow from the reservoir
(Res w out) and the output is the water effectively stored
in the soil root zone (Root zone w). The whole path can

Irrigated agriculture Rain-fed agriculture

Res_w_out Soil_w
Res_w_in Rainfall
Hydrological

Farm_w_del.
Hydrological

Res_w_out
Field_w_appl.
Farm_w_del.
Root_zone_w Root_zone_w
Field_w_appl. Soil_w

ΣET
Agronomic

Root_zone_w

ΣT
ΣET WUE

ΣAssimilation Photosynthetic WP
WP
ΣT
Ecophysiological

Biomass
x
ΣAssimilation Biomass WP

x
Yield
Yield WP
Biomass
x x

Meat/Milk Meat/Milk
Animal husbandry

Yield Biomass
Figure 1. Suggested framework for analyzing components
of water use efficiency and water productivity in agricultural
crop production and animal husbandry. The overall path
Meat/Milk WP Meat/Milk WP ‘‘traveled’’ by water is split into different segments where
appropriate analysis can be performed. See text for
explanation.
560 LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY
be split into different segments (e.g., from the dam to the
collective irrigation system; from the collective system to
the hydrant of a single farm, from the hydrant to the
cropped field where an irrigation system is present, and
from the outlets of the irrigation system into the root
zone of the crop being irrigated) to investigate the single
component efficiencies and the overall efficiency obtained
from the product of the single-segment efficiencies.
In rain-fed agriculture, rainfall represents the source
of water, and the ratio of the water stored in the soil
(Soil w) to the water from the rain (Rainfall) represents
the rain storage efficiency. Out of all the water stored in
the soil (Soil w), only a portion may be available in the soil
explored by crop roots (Root zone w), and this represents
the available water efficiency. All efficiencies mentioned so
far can be qualified as hydrological.
After the final allocation of water in the root zone
(whether irrigated or rain-fed), water follows a common
pathway for the crop production process: it enters the
plants and evapotranspires into the atmosphere. We can
identify two additional efficiencies that may be qualified
as agronomic: one is expressed by the ratio of the amount
of water used by evapotranspiration (
ET) to the water
stored in the soil root zone (Root zon w); the other
is expressed by the ratio of the amount of effectively
transpired (
T) and the total amount of evapotranspired
water (
ET). This last segment of the water path is
essential because nontranspired water is not considered
productive to the crop. Thus, a distinction has to be made
between soil evaporation (E), which is a loss, and crop
transpiration (T).
At this point, the water has finished its trip from the
source, all the way through the system, passing through
the soil, entering the plant, and ending up into the
atmosphere, beginning as a liquid phase and ending up
as a vapor phase. So far, all the expressions of efficiency
for the different segments (either those pertaining to the
hydrological pathway or those pertaining to the agronomic
pathway) properly match the definition of Equation 1.
because they are nondimensional and have theoretical
limits between 0 and 1.
Examining the remaining segments of the framework
reported in Fig. 1, we next enter the physiological (or
better, ecophysiological) domain of the agricultural system
where the term efficiency loses its rigorous meaning and it
is more appropriate to talk in terms of water productivity
(pw ). Three major expressions for pw can be identified:
(1) photosynthetic water productivity (photosynthetic pw );
(2) biomass water productivity (biomass pw ); and (3) yield
water productivity (yield pw ).
Photosynthetic pw is defined as the ratio of leaf net
assimilation to leaf transpiration (A/T) and varies among
species according to their photosynthetic pathways. These
species can be grouped into three major types: the C3 ,
C4 , and CAM plants. All three types ultimately rely
on the Calvin photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle for
their CO2 assimilation, but some additional features
characterize those groups that make the photosynthetic
pw of CAM plants higher than that of C4 plants, which
in turn is higher than that of C3 plants, in comparable
environmental conditions. Values of photosynthetic pw may
also vary according to the nutritional status of the leaves
and their age. Variable environmental conditions (e.g.,
radiation regime, dryness of the atmosphere, etc.) may
also affect the values of photosynthetic pw . Under equal
ambient conditions, all species belonging to the same group
type have similar photosynthetic pw values.
Biomass pw is defined as the ratio of cumulative above-
ground biomass (biomass) of a crop canopy to cumulative
transpiration (
T) by the crop. The relationship between
cumulative aboveground biomass and
T is generally
quite strict. The slope of the relationship may vary from
year to year and from location to location, depending on the
different environmental conditions and the biomass com-
position of the various species. When
T is normalized for
a reference evaporative demand of a given climatic envi-
ronment and the nutritional conditions are similar, many
crop species follow the same slope and group into the same
types as indicated for the photosynthetic pathways pw (C3 ,
C4 , and CAM) and the main production compounds (e.g.,
carbohydrates, proteins, or lipids).
Yield pw is defined as the product of biomass pw times
the harvest index (HI, i.e., the ratio of the marketable yield
to aboveground biomass). Yield pw values are variable
among species and cultivars, depending on the values of
HI, which in turn depend on the partitioning of assimilates
in the various plant organs (e.g., leaves, stem, grains). Of
course, HI can also vary greatly as a consequence of the
environmental conditions where the plant is growing (e.g.,
water stress, nutritional deficit, etc.).
The water productivity concept can be extended to
animal production systems when the crop’s biomass and/or
yield are used as feed. Then, the product of biomass or yield
water productivity is multiplied by the factor of conversion
of the feed into animal production (dairy product or meat).
The ratio approach can be extended throughout the system
up to the final step of interest (Fig. 1).
Furthermore, when the amount of product (the
nominator of the productivity ratio) is expressed as gross
income (e.g., multiplying it by the price) or as net income
(e.g., deducting production costs), the ratio can represent
the economic water productivity (economic pw ), better
indicated as water return (rw ) having the unit of ‘‘currency’’
(dollars, euro, etc.) per unit amount of water (volume,
quantity, or depth).
LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE
ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY
PEYMAN DANESHKAR ARASTEH
Soil Conservation and
Watershed Management
Research Institute (SCWMRI)
Tehran, Iran
INTRODUCTION
Many activities such as irrigation and agricultural
scheduling, water resources planning, weather forecast-
ing, atmospheric circulation modeling, energy resources
management and development, and even health related
issues involve studying the surface energy balance (EB) of
 LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY
the earth. Photosynthesis and other metabolic processes
in green plants, evaporation from free water and soil
surfaces, wind effects, atmospheric and oceanic circula-
tion, and many other phenomena are mainly functions
of solar radiation. In other words, they are functions of
surface EB, in which solar radiation is the most important
driving force.
Due to nonuniform properties of the earth’s surface
(albedo, heat capacity, soil cover, etc.) and also due to
temporal variation of the earth’s surface properties, the
earth’s surface phenomena must be monitored on spatial
and temporal scales. Due to spatial variations, ground-
based monitoring of the earth surface can cover only small
areas because of economic restrictions.
Generally, installing a dense monitoring network is
not feasible or it is technically impossible. For example,
first-order climatology stations may be 100 km apart.
But variations in soil texture, soil cover, topography
and microclimate may occur on a much smaller spatial
scale. On the other hand, interpolation/extrapolation of
point observations may be insufficient due to weak ground
coverage. And, the need for distributed models increases.
Satellite imagery provides a large view of the earth’s
surface. Such a spatially continuous, but time discrete,
data acquisition system provides a suitable framework for
distributed modeling, provided that the phenomenon to be
modeled has spectral behavior.
All features on or near the earth’s surface, including soil
surface, water bodies, vegetation cover, and near surface
atmosphere, exhibit spectral characteristics. Therefore,
remote sensing can monitor the earth’s surface directly
or indirectly. During the past two decades, several
satellites were launched with a large variety of sensor
capabilities. Many articles in the literature report using
remote sensing to study the energy partitioning of
the earth’s surface. In this respect, Bastiaanssen (1)
developed a model for energy partitioning using a remote
sensing algorithm named SEBAL (surface energy balance
algorithm for land). Bastiaanssen et al. (2) used SEBAL to
model evapotranspiration on a catchment scale in Spain,
Niger, China, and Egypt. Bastiaanssen (3) also tested
the model in Turkey. Silberstein et al. (4) correlated the
surface effective temperature with the satellite-derived
surface temperature to form the energy balance on a
catchment scale.
Remote sensing is being applied in a large number
of investigations, such as Xin and Shih (5), Laymon
et al. (6), and Biftu and Gan (7) to model surface
evaporation and canopy evapotranspiration. Bastiaanssen
et al. (8) introduced the possibilities of applications in
agriculture, and Arasteh (9) developed a model to estimate
evaporation from the Hamoon Wetlands called HRSE
(Hamoons remotely sensed evaporation) within an area of
4000 km2 on the Iran–Afghanistan border using NOAA-
AVHRR images.
The advantages of using remote sensing in hydrologic
studies have been stated by Prince (10) and Dubayah
et al. (11) as follows:
1. large aerial coverage
2. higher spatial resolution than ground-point obser-
vations
561
3. availability of long-term records from area without
ground observations
4. possibility of change detection
In this article, the EB is studied using remotely sensed
data and some common methods are introduced. Then, the
EB components of the Hamoon Wetlands are described as
a case study.
ENERGY BALANCE
All climatic and hydrologic phenomena in the atmosphere
and on the earth’s surface are affected by the EB of the
surface. The EB is one of the main subjects in climatology,
hydrology, civil and traffic engineering, biology, and
health. EB is the balance between the inward and outgoing
energy components of the surface.
Understanding the behavior of the terrestrial hydro-
sphere, biosphere, and climatic systems and their possible
changes requires knowledge of the nature of the EB (11).
The EB of a surface is the radiative transfer of energy
through the top of the earth’s surface and the molecular
energy transfer into the soil matrix or free waterbody (12).
Fig. 1 shows the components of the EB.
As shown in Fig. 1, the EB has several components.
The net radiation flux of the surface, Rn , is the algebraic
sum of the following components:
Rn + A − S − G − λE − Q = 0, (1)
where A, S, G, λE, and Q are advective and convective
sensible heat, soil heat, latent heat fluxes and change
in heat storage, respectively. All of the fluxes have the
dimension of MT−3 with units such as MJ/m2 -day. In
Eq. 1, all sources of energy (Rn and A) are positive values,
and sink terms (S, G, λE, and Q) are negative.
There is also a radiation balance at the surface, in
which the net radiation is calculated from the algebraic
sum of the inward and outward radiations (Eq. 2).
Rn = Rs ↓ −Rs ↑ +Rl ↓ −Rl ↑, (2)
where Rs and Rl are short- and long-wave radiation,
respectively; ↓ and ↑, represent inward and outward
radiation to and from the surface.
Using Stephan’s law, Eq. 2 changes to (6,13):
Rn = (1 − α)Rs + Cσ (εsky Ta 4 − εsurface TS 4 ) (3)
where α is surface albedo; εsky and εsurface are the emissiv-
ities of the atmosphere and the surface, respectively; C is
the cloudiness factor; σ is the Stephan–Boltzman constant
(4.903 × 10−9 MJ/K4 -m2 -day); and Ts and Ta , are surface
and near surface atmosphere temperatures (K).
Other components of EB, S and λE, may be determined
by aerodynamic resistance relations (6,13,14) and G can
be modeled on the basis of heat conduction theory (12):
ρCp
S= (Ts − Ta ) (4)
ra
562 LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY

∆RI
S aRs lE
lE Rs Sun
A
∆RI
S
∆Q aRs

Soil A lE
aRs S

G Free water
A = Advective sensible heat flux
G = Ground heat flux ∆Q
Rs = Solar radiation flux
S = Sensible heat flux
a = Albedo
lE = Latent heat flux Earth
∆Q = Change in energy storage
Figure 1. Schematic components of the EB. ∆RI = Net long-wave radiation

ρCp eS (Ts ) − ea Surface Albedo

λE = (5)
γ ra + rs
dT
G = dCs (6)
dt
where ρ is air density (kg/m3 ); Cp is the specific heat of air
(MJ/kg-K); Cs is the soil matrix or waterbody heat capacity
(MJ/m3 -K); γ is the psychometric constant; ra and rs are
aerodynamic and surface resistances, respectively (s/m);
es and ea are saturated vapor pressure at Ts and actual air
vapor pressure, respectively (kPa); d is the depth of soil
or water (m); and dT/dt is the change in temperature per
unit time.
Equations 3–6 have some variables that can be
determined by remote sensing and others must be obtained
from ground observations. The received solar radiation, Rs ,
is introduced in several texts on the basis of the earth–Sun
geometric relationships (15). Determination of surface
temperature and near surface air temperature, dew point,
precipitable water in atmosphere column, vapor pressure
deficit, and albedo are reviewed by Cracknell, (16), Prince
et al. (10), Dubayah et al. (11), Menenti (17), Granger (18),
and Schmugge et al. (19).
REMOTELY SENSED EB
Reflected directional radiance in VIS and NIR channels
(0.4 to 2.5 µm) are being used to determine surface
albedo (16–18). To determine surface albedo, Gutman (20)
and Csiszar and Gutman (21) introduced the following
methodology:
1. Normalizing VIS and NIR channels reflectances with
respect to solar zenith angle (SZA):
(ρ1 )TOA = R1 cos(SZA)
(7)
(ρ2 )TOA = R2 cos(SZA)
where R is reflectance; ρ is normalized reflectance;
SZA is solar zenith angle (radians); 1 and 2 indexes
represent VIS and NIR channels, respectively; and
TOA is top of atmosphere.
2. Converting VIS and NIR narrowband reflectance
to a broadband reflectance by a linear relation to
determine top of atmosphere (TOA) reflectance:
(ρ)TOA = a + b(ρ1 )TOA + c(ρ2 )TOA (8)
where a, b, c are regression coefficients.
3. Correcting TOA reflectance for anisotropy to deter-
mine TOA albedo:

(α)TOA = (ρ)TOA (ARF)−1 (9)

Satellite remote sensing is a collection of sciences,
technologies, and methods of inferring the earth’s surface
parameters by measuring the electromagnetic radiation
of the surface (18). Visible (VIS), near infrared (NIR)
and thermal infrared (TIR) channels are used for EB
processing (16,17,19).
Some primary surface parameters such as surface
albedo, surface temperature, air temperature, surface
roughness, land cover, and land use may be provided by
remote sensing. In the following, satellite data acquisitions
are introduced.
where ARF is the anisotropic reflectance factor.
4. Modifying TOA albedo for atmospheric effects to
determine surface albedo:
α = f [(α)TOA , SZA,AWV,AA] (10)
where α is albedo (%), AWV is atmospheric water
vapor, and AA are atmospheric aerosols. Song and
Gao (22) gave calibrated nonlinear relations between
 LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY
coefficients b and c and NDVI (normalized difference
vegetation index) or SAVI.
NIR − R
NDVI =
NIR + R


NIR − R
SAVI = 1.5
NIR + R + 0.5
where R is the red channel of the spectrum.
Instead of the linear relation of Equation 8 Granger (18)
emphasized that the AVHRR-NIR channel could be
used individually to determine the out of atmosphere
reflectance and the corresponding albedo.
Surface Temperature
Surface temperature is the result of the thermodynamic
equilibrium between the energy condition in the near
surface atmosphere, soil surface, and subsurface soil.
It is also a function of surface emissivity (19). The
first step in inferring surface temperature by remote
sensing is to determine the brightness temperature, TB ,
of TIR channels. The TB at satellite temperature is
the temperature of a blackbody and can be determined
by solving Planck’s spectral distribution function for
blackbody temperature (16):
 ν2
E(ν, TB ) (ν)dν
R(TB ) =
ν1
 ν2
(ν)dν
ν1
2
where R is radiance (MJ/m -Sr-cm); TB is brightness
temperature (K); E is Planck’s radiation energy of a
blackbody (MJ/m2 -Sr-cm); is spectral response function;
and ν is wave number equal to the inverse of wavelength
(cm−1 ).
Spectral radiance, R, is determined from the sensor
calibration equation on the basis of the image digital
number. Equation 13 must be solved numerically for
energy E. Then the brightness temperature, TB , is
determined by solving Planck’s law (16):
C2 ν
TB =

C1 ν 3
ln 1 +
E the study by Arasteh (9) on Hamoon Wetlands is
in which C1 = 1.1910659 × 10−5 MJ/s-m2 -Sr-cm−4 and
C2 = 1.438833 [cm-K].
To determine surface temperature, there are several
methods classified in three major categories:
1. Ground observation based calibration
2. Atmospheric effects back-modeling
3. Atmospheric effects omission (two-look method and
multichannel method or split window)
Cracknell (18) has described these methods in detail. The
split window method for determining surface temperature
is the most common (10,18,23,24).
563
Air Temperature
Ground observation calibration methods can be used to
determine air temperature. Air temperature can also, be
(11) derived from the thermal vegetation index (10,11) where
the surface temperature of a closed canopy is assumed
equal to its adjacent air temperature.
(12)
Sky and Surface Emissivities
Surface and near surface atmosphere emissions are
related to surface indexes such as NDVI, SAVI, etc. (6,25):
εsurface = a1 · NDVI + a2 (15)
εsurface = b1 · ln(NDVI) + b2 (16)
where a1 , a2 , b1 , and b2 , are regression coefficients.
Net Radiation, Sensible and Latent Heat Flux Densities
According to Eq. 3, from the earth–Sun geometry and
satellite data acquisition, using previously mentioned
methods, one can determine Rn . Using satellite derived Ts
and Ta and ground based data, other energy components
of the surface of Eqs. 4–6 can be determined. In this
respect, surface and aerodynamic resistances and surface
roughness length are related to LAI (leaf area index) and
consequently to remote sensing by indexes such as NDVI
or SAVI (3,25):
(13)
Z0m = exp(a · NDVI + b ) (17)
LAI = a · ln(b + NDVI) (18)
LAI = a · exp(b · NDVI) (19)
rs = f (LAI) (20)
ra = f (Z0h )
where Z0m and Z0h are the surface roughness length
due to turbulence and heat, respectively; ra and rs , are
aerodynamic and surface resistances; and a , a , a , b , b ,
and b are regression coefficients.
Case Study
(14)
To show an example of a remotely sensed EB application,
summarized as follows:
The Hamoon Wetlands located between Iran and
Afghanistan form a complex hydraulic-hydrologic system
of three neighboring wetlands with an average water area
of 4000 km2 in wet years. The wetlands are transboundary
and affect all human activities in the region (Fig. 2).
Determining an estimate of evaporation from the free
water surface of the Hamoon Wetlands was the main
objective of the study by Arasteh (9). For this, it was
required to study remotely sensed EB. Arasteh (9) used
energy partitioning to fulfill this objective. Using his
algorithm with the NOAA-AVHRR-14 image of May 10,
1998, the net radiation, sensible heat, and latent heat of
the Hamoon surface are shown in Fig. 3.
564 LARGE AREA SURFACE ENERGY BALANCE ESTIMATION USING SATELLITE IMAGERY

N 15% for this component. Dubayah et al. (11) stated that

FARAHROUD
RIVER
it is not possible to estimate downwelling long-wave
SABORI radiation with accuracy less than 20 W/m2 using AVHRR
HAMOON data.
POOZAK Finally, it can be concluded that the accuracy of a
HAMOON remotely sensed EB is related mainly to the spatial
KHASHROUD resolution of images, the spectral resolution (number of
RIVER channels and bandwidth for each channel), the accuracy of
ground-based observations, and the range of applicability
Zabol of calibrated equations.
HIRMAND
HAMOON
CHAHNIMEH SOURCES OF SATELLITE EB
RESERVOIR

HIRMAND Carleton (26) summarized some sources of satellite based

SHILEH RIVER EB (Table 1). He emphasized METEOSAT, GMS, and
RIVER ERBS satellite systems as the most important sources
AFGHANISTAN LEGEND of global coverage of EB. The ERBS is a profes-
I.R. of IRAN sional system. The Earth Radiation Budget Experi-
Rivers & Waterways
Waterbodies
ment (ERBE) included ERBS and NOAA 9–10 plat-
Borderline forms.
Zahedan City

0 100000 meter Table 1. Some Satellite Systems Related to EB

Figure 2. Hamoon Wetlands region between Iran and Generationa
Afghanistan. Spectral Type of
Variable Region Sensor Satellite Satellite

Surface albedo VIS SR NOAA Polar orbiter

DATA ACCURACY NIR AVHRR NOAA Polar orbiter
VISSR GOES Geostationary
To use each method, it is necessary to consider its accuracy.
Surface solar VIS SR NOAA Polar orbiter
Therefore, it is very important to consider the question of
irradiance
the accuracy of remotely sensed EB. VISSR GOES Geostationary
Considering Eqs. 1 and 3–6, there are various variables
with their own sources of error. Cracknell (16) reported a Outgoing TIR SR NOAA Polar orbiter
variation of 0.5 to 1.4 K in the sea surface temperature long-wave
Radiation
for only a 2% change in surface emissivity. Menenti (17)
AVHRR NOAA
reviewed the literature and reported errors of less than
3% in latent heat and obtained an average error of a
Reference 26.

(a) (b) N (c)

N
31°30′00.00″N

N
31°30′00.00″N
31°30′00.00″N

31°00′00.00″N
31°00′00.00″N
31°00′00.00″N

MJ/m2-day
MJ/m2-day < 20
MJ/m2-day < −10 20 to 22
22 to 24
< 10 −10 to −8
−8 to −6 24 to 26
30°30′00.00″N

10 to 12 −6 to −4 26 to 28
12 to 14 −4 to −2 28 to 30
30°30′00.00″N

14 to 16 30 <
30°30′00.00″N

16 to 18 −2 to 0
18 to 20 0<
20 <

61°00′00.00″E 61°30′00.00″E 62°00′00.00″E

61°00′00.00″E 61°30′00.00″E 62°00′00.00″E 61°00′00.00″E 61°30′00.00″E 62°00′00.00″E

0 50 km 0 50 km 0 50 km

Figure 3. Energy partitioning for Hamoon Wetlands using the Arasteh (9) algorithm; (a) net
radiation, (b) sensible heat, and (c) latent heat.

RELATED INTERNET SITES
1. http://www.saa.noaa.gov/nsaa/products/.
2. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/RB/.
3. http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/gcip/.
4. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/∼map/maproom/text/
Climate Pages/olr.shtml.
5. http://poes.nesdis.noaa.gov/climate/.
6. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/.
7. http://www.eurometeo.com/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. (1995). Regionalization of Surface Flux
Densities and Moisture Indicators in Composite Terrain,
Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
2. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. et al. (1998). A remote sensing surface
energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL): 2. Validation. J.
Hydrol. 212–213: 213–229.
3. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. (2000). SEBAL-based sensible and
latent heat fluxes in the irrigated Gediz Basin, Turkey. J.
Hydrol. 229: 87–100.
4. Silberstein, R.P., Sivapalan, M., and Wyllie, A. (1999). On the
validation of a coupled water and energy balance model at
small catchment scales. J. Hydrol. 220: 149–168.
5. Xin, J.N. and Shih, S.F. (1991). NOAA polar-orbiting satellite
APT data in lake evaporation estimation. J. Irrig. Drainage
Eng. 117(4): 547–557.
6. Laymon, C. et al. (1998). Remotely-sensed regional-scale
evapotranspiration of a semi-arid Great Basin desert and
its relationship to geomorphology, soils and vegetation.
Geomorphology 21: 329–349.
7. Biftu, G.F. and Gan, T.Y. (2000). Assessment of evapotran-
spiration models applied to a watershed of Canadian Prairies
with mixed land-uses. Hydrological Processes 14: 1305–
1325.
8. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., Molden, D.J., and Makin, I.W. (2000).
Remote sensing for irrigated agriculture: Examples from
research and possible applications. Agric. Water Manage.
46: 137–155.
9. Arasteh, P.D. (2004). Development of a Distributed Model for
Estimation of Regional Evaporation using Remote Sensing
Techniques, Case Study: Hamoon Lakes of Iran, Ph.D. Thesis,
Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.
10. Prince, S.D. et al. (1998). Inference of surface and air
temperature, atmospheric precipitable water and vapor
pressure deficit using advanced very high- resolution
radiometer satellite observations: Comparison with field
observations. J. Hydrol. 212–213: 230–249.
11. Dubayah, R.O., Wood, E.F., Engman, E.T., Czajkowski, K.P.,
Zion, M., and Rhoades, J. (2000). Remote sensing in hydro-
logical modeling, In: Remote Sensing in Hydrology and
Water Management. G.A. Schultz and E.T. Engman (Eds.).
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 85–102.
12. Stull, R.B. (1988). An Introduction to Boundary Layer
Meteorology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands,
pp. 251–294.
13. Engman, E.T. and Gurney, R.J. (1991). Remote Sensing
in Hydrology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 85–
102.
SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES 565
14. Albertson, J.D., Kiely, G., and Parlange, M.B. (1996). Surface
fluxes of momentum, heat and water vapor. In: Radiation and
Water in Climate System. E. Raschke (Ed.). Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Germany, pp. 59–82.
15. Burman, R. and Pochop, L.O. (1994). Evaporation, Evapo-
transpiration and Climate Data. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, pp. 28–54.
16. Cracknell, A.P. (1997). The Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR). Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
17. Menenti, M. (2000). Evaporation. In: Remote Sensing
in Hydrology and Water Management. G.A. Schultz and
E.T. Engman (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 157–188.
18. Granger, R.J. (2000). Satellite derived estimates of evapo-
transpiration in Gediz Basin. J. Hydrol. 229: 70–76.
19. Schmugge, T.J. et al. (2002). Remote sensing in hydrology.
Adv. Water Resour. 25: 1367–1385.
20. Gutman, G. (1988). A simple method for estimating monthly
mean albedo of land surface from AVHRR data. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 27: 973–984.
21. Csiszar, I. and Gutman, G. (1999). Mapping global land
surface albedo from NOAA-AVHRR. J. Geophys. Res. 104:
6215–6228.
22. Song, J. and Gao, W. (1999). An improved method to derive
surface albedo from narrowband AVHRR satellite data:
Narrowband to broadband conversion. J. Appl. Meteorol. 38:
239–249.
23. Andersen, H.S. (1997). Land surface temperature estimation
based on NOAA-AVHRR data during the HAPEX-Sahel
experiment. J. Hydrol. 188–189: 788–814.
24. Watts, C.J. et al. (2000). Comparison of sensible heat flux
estimates using AVHRR with scintillometer measurements
over semi-arid grassland in northeast Mexico. Agric. Forest
Meteorol. 105: 81–89.
25. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., Menenti, M., Feddes, R.A., and Holt-
slag, A.A.M. (1998). A remote sensing surface energy balance
algorithm for land (SEBAL): 1. Formulation. J. Hydrol.
212–213: 198–212.
26. Carleton, A.M. (1991). Satellite Remote Sensing in Climatol-
ogy. Belhaven Press, London, UK, pp. 205–244.
SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES
MARIANNE MCHUGH
MICHELLE CLARKE
JULIA DUZANT
ROY MORGAN
JANE RICKSON
Cranfield University
North Wyke, Devon, United
Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
Soil erosion is the removal of soil or other slope-
forming materials by erosive agents, namely, water
and wind. Accelerated soil loss, in excess of the rate
of natural soil erosion, is perpetuated when surface
vegetation is compromised or removed. It is therefore
more likely to occur wherever land is used by humans
566 SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES

for agricultural production, infrastructural construction, Wind Erosion

mineral abstraction, or recreation, and where measures
The main factor affecting wind erosion is the velocity
for soil protection are not in place.
of moving air. Because of the roughness imparted by
Soil erosion involves a two-phase process of soil
vegetation, soil, and other obstacles, wind speeds are
detachment and transport, both of which require an
lowest nearest the ground surface. Above this, wind speed
energy input. Much of the energy of erosion derives
increases exponentially with height. The movement of
from water or wind flow over the soil surface or is
soil particles can be related to critical shear velocity,
provided by gravity. Although reducing the energy of
which is the velocity of wind required to dislodge soil
erosive forces is the most effective way of controlling
particles from the ground surface and is dependent on
soil erosion, one consequence of reducing energy may
soil particle size and soil cohesiveness. Very high shear
be the deposition of any material already eroded. As
velocities are required to initiate soil particle movement
eroded sediment is often enriched with nutrients, organic
by wind, and this energy may be translated to adjacent soil
matter, and contaminants preferentially adsorbed onto
particles at the same time, thus causing a chain reaction
the sediment surface, sediment deposition may allow
of motion. Sediment-laden air also acts to detach and
contaminant release into the environment. It is necessary,
mobilize other soil particles by bombarding or impacting
therefore, to reduce erosive energy at the source areas
on the soil surface. Once in motion, soil particles are
of sediment rather than after the sediment has been
transported by wind in suspension (in the air), as surface
detached and transported.
creep (rolling along the ground surface), and as saltation
(particle movement in jumps) (4).
SOIL EROSION
Rates of Soil Erosion
Water Erosion
Rates of soil erosion are normally expressed in terms of
Rainsplash (detachment and removal of soil particles and the mass or volume of soil removed from a unit area of
aggregates at the soil surface by raindrop impact) is an land per unit of time (t or m3 ·ha−1 ·y−1 ). Typical annual
important soil-detaching agent. The energy available for rates of erosion on hillslopes under forest or natural
erosion is related to raindrop size and velocity. Raindrops grassland are 0.01–0.5 t·ha−1 in areas of moderate slope
have greater kinetic energy than the same volume of
steepness and 0.1–5 t·ha−1 on steeper slopes. These rates
runoff and are thus potentially more erosive, although
are generally considered low and representative of erosion
most raindrop energy is expended in soil detachment,
as a natural geomorphological process. On agricultural
leaving little energy available for sediment transport.
land, annual rates are much higher, ranging from 0.1
Rainsplash plays a further role in slope erosion through
to 200 t·ha−1 , reflecting the poorer protection afforded by
the detachment, dispersion, and redeposition of fine soil
various crops. Arable land is particularly vulnerable to
particles on the soil surface. Soil pores are blocked by
erosion seasonally when the soil is bare between ploughing
the redeposited particles, resulting in a surface seal, a
and crop emergence and also from emergence until the crop
reduction in infiltration, and an increase in erosive runoff.
canopy closes. Grazing land is vulnerable if overgrazing
Rainsplash constitutes only a negligible proportion of
removes the vegetation cover. Even higher rates of erosion
total soil loss except where runoff is not generated, where
have been recorded on construction sites, often reaching
it can be the dominant process of sediment removal (1).
1000 or even 5000 t·ha−1 ·yr−1 .
Where runoff does occur, particle suspension is greatly
Since erosion is a natural process, it is implicit that it
enhanced by raindrop impact (2) and rainsplash operates
cannot be prevented. Erosion can, however, be controlled
as a ‘‘feeder’’ mechanism to rill and runoff erosion. Runoff
at an acceptable rate, which should be no faster than the
may also present a buffer between falling raindrops and
rate at which new soil forms. As little is known about rates
the soil surface, so that detachment by rainsplash can
of soil formation, except that they are extremely slow, a
be limited by runoff. This depends on water depth and
value of 1 t·ha−1 (equivalent to 0.1 mm·y−1 ) is sometimes
raindrop size (3).
accepted as an average annual rate for temperate areas. A
Runoff in unchanneled form has a relatively low
more pragmatic approach is to consider the environmental
kinetic energy and, while able to transport soil particles
damage that can occur if no control measures are in place
thrown into the flow by raindrop impact, is not able to
(Table 1). Decisions can then be made about the level
detach new material. Hortonian runoff (when rainfall
of damage tolerable relative to the costs of preventing
intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil)
that damage.
depends critically on rainfall intensity and amount and
soil infiltration capacity. Saturation runoff (when rainfall
Impacts of Soil Erosion
amount exceeds soil storage capacity) depends on rainfall
intensity, subsoil permeability, and the porosity and Soil is a valuable resource in situ but when eroded by
permeability of the topsoil. wind and water it can cause significant impacts both on
Runoff channeled into rills or gullies has higher kinetic and off site. The on-site implications of soil erosion include
energy and is a much more powerful agent, able to detach declines in cultivable soil depth, available soil moisture,
and transport soil particles of all sizes, including gravels soil organic matter, nutrient content, soil fertility, and soil
and small stones. Its considerable erosive power can structure as well as large-scale losses in productive area
account for up to 78% of the total material transported through gullying or mass movement (4). These on-site
within an erosion event. effects are particularly important on agricultural land:
 SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES 567

Table 1. Rates of Erosion at a Field Scale and Associated Levels of Damage from Individual Storm Events
Erosion Rate, t·ha−1 Class Indicators

<1 Natural No surface evidence of erosion; land well-protected by vegetation cover (90–100%
ground cover); very low sediment concentrations in runoff water, which appears clear.
1–2 Very slight No surface evidence of erosion; land protected by vegetation cover (70–90% ground
cover); low sediment concentrations in runoff water, which is clear to slightly cloudy.
2–5 Slight Some crusting of the soil surface; localized wash, small channels (rills) every 50–100 m
spacing; 30–70% ground cover; slight risk of pollution if runoff discharges directly
into water courses.
5–10 Moderate Evidence of surface wash; rills spaced every 20–50 m; exposed tree roots mark level of
former soil surface; slight to moderate surface crusting; 30–70% ground cover; risk of
pollution if runoff discharges directly into water courses.
10–50 High Continuous network of rill channels every 5–10 m or deeper channels (gullies) every
50–100 m; surface crusting of soils over large area; <30% ground cover; danger of
pollution and sedimentation downstream.
50–100 Severe Land scarred by continuous network of rills every 2–5 m or gullies every 20 m;
sediment splays of coarse material; bare soil; siltation of water bodies; damage to
roads by erosion and sedimentation; risk of muddy floods.
100–500 Very severe Land heavily scarred by continuous network of channels with gullies every 5–10 m; soil
heavily crusted; bare soil; severe siltation, pollution, flooding, and eutrophication
problems downstream.
>500 Catastrophic Extensive network of rills and gullies; large gullies (>100 m2 ) every 20 m; most of
original soil surface removed; severe damage from erosion, pollution, flooding, and
sedimentation downstream.

annual agricultural damage costs due to erosion have
been estimated at £264 million in the United Kingdom
alone (5). The net effect of these impacts is a loss in
productivity, which both restricts what can be grown
and results in increased expenditure on fertilizers and
irrigation to maintain yields. Later this threatens food
production and may ultimately lead to land abandonment,
with a concurrent decline in the value of land as it changes
from productive farmland to wasteland (4). A further
consequence of this is the unsustainable exploitation of
land resources elsewhere.
The deposition of eroded sediment reduces the capacity
of rivers and drainage ditches, enhances flooding,
blocks irrigation canals, and shortens the design life
of reservoirs (4). Deposited sediment also represents a
risk to infrastructure. Chemicals, including fertilizers
and pesticides, and nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) deposited with eroding soil may have
detrimental effects on water quality for supply, recreation,
and fisheries. Further impacts on aquatic ecosystems
include increases in turbidity reducing light penetration
and O2 availability, thereby reducing plant growth and key
biological activities such as photosynthesis; submergence
and physical damage to floodplain and in-stream plants;
and clogging of fish spawning gravels.
CONTROLLING SOIL EROSION
Measures to control erosion rely on reduction of the
energy of erosive forces. Reducing the rate at which
soil is detached and transported involves increasing
interception and infiltration of rainfall and runoff;
reducing runoff volume, velocity, and energy; decreasing
the area over which runoff occurs; increasing soil
resistance; and increasing soil aggregate stability. The
practical measures available to achieve these conditions
include mechanical, agronomic, and soil management
methods of erosion control.
Mechanical Methods of Erosion Control
Mechanical methods of soil conservation are useful in
the control of soil erosion by water. They include terraces,
constructed on hill slopes to control soil erosion by reducing
slope length and slope steepness, thus limiting the energy
of runoff to detach and transport soil material (6). There
are many different types of terrace but generic types
include the channel and bench terrace. Channel terraces
are suited to slopes no steeper than 7◦ (12%) (6) and
consist of a cut channel and filled ridge (constructed
from the cut material) constructed across the slope.
The distance between consecutive terraces downslope
is influenced by site conditions, with greater distances
between terraces on gentler slopes and shorter terrace
intervals on steeper slopes.
Bench terraces are steplike structures constructed
across a slope to prevent erosion by dissecting the hill slope
into smaller, shorter slope components, each with a level or
near-level bench. The dimensions of the benches depend on
slope steepness, the desirable width of cultivable land, and
the acceptable height of the steep wall (riser) of the terrace,
which is often related to soil depth. As construction of the
level bench requires oversteepening of the terrace riser,
this near-vertical wall must be supported with stones,
masonry, or timber to prevent collapse.
In channel terrace systems, runoff is discharged
into a channel constructed at a gentle gradient across
slope to ensure that erosion within the channel itself
does not occur. The channels are usually kept free
of vegetation, so that any accumulated sediment can
be excavated each year. From there, flow is directed
to lined waterways, which are designed to cope with
increased volume and velocity of runoff without causing
568 SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES
erosion. These waterways, ideally located in natural
depressions to minimize the need for earth moving, are
lined with vegetation, stones, or geotextiles with high
shear resistance to minimize the risk of erosion.
Agronomic Methods of Erosion Control
Water Erosion Control. Agronomic methods involve the
use of vegetation to control soil erosion and are highly
effective (7). A plant canopy intercepts rainfall, changing
raindrop size distribution and reducing fall velocities, so
that kinetic energy available for erosion via raindrop
impact is reduced. Plant stems distort and impart
roughness to runoff paths, reducing flow velocity and
thus kinetic energy to detach and transport soil material.
Plant roots encourage infiltration through the soil profile
and thus reduce the risk of runoff generation. Lateral
plant roots also increase the resistance of soil against the
shearing forces of runoff.
Agronomic methods of erosion control include ensuring
maximum cover on the soil surface, especially during
high rainfall periods, to protect the soil from erosive
raindrops and maintaining high stem and root densities to
reduce runoff volumes, velocities, and energy. These can
be achieved through cover cropping, high density planting,
crop rotations, mulching, and erosion control geotextiles.
A geotextile is any permeable textile material that is an
integral part of a constructed project, structure, or system.
It may be made of synthetic or natural fibers. Geotextiles
have many applications in land and water management,
but those used for erosion control are usually in the
form of two- or three-dimensional mats, webs, nets, grids,
or sheets.
Natural fiber geotextiles are biodegradable and
designed to be laid over the surface of the soil to pro-
vide protection against erosion until a vegetative cover
is established: in this way, geotextiles act as simulated
vegetation. Artificial fiber geotextiles are designed to give
permanent protection to the soil surface and are usually
buried to reinforce the soil both before and after vegeta-
tion establishment. Surface-laid, natural fiber geotextiles
are more effective at controlling soil erosion by raindrop
impact because they provide good surface cover, high
water absorption, and a rough surface on which water
can pond. They also reduce erosion by runoff because
they impart roughness to the soil surface and therefore
reduce runoff velocity. Buried geotextiles reduce erosion
to a lesser extent as they cannot control rainsplash ero-
sion and actually increase erosion if they are backfilled
with loosely consolidated, and therefore highly erodible,
material. Over time, natural fiber geotextiles biodegrade
and become less effective as vegetation establishes on the
slope while artificial fiber mats continue to perform.
These measures also control soil erosion by contributing
nutrients, organic matter, and carbon to the soil,
thus encouraging microbial activity and improving soil
structure and aggregate stability, which in turn further
reduces the potential for soil erosion. Vegetation can also
be used to reduce slope length and steepness (and thus
erosion risk) when grown in strips parallel to the contour.
The strips may be of different crops (strip cropping) or as
a single field strip across the slope. The strips restrict the
potential for runoff generation and encourage deposition
of eroded sediment within the strips so that local slope
gradients may be reduced. Common in areas where field
boundaries (e.g., hedges) have been removed to increase
field size and allow agricultural intensification, field grass
strips can be established along former field boundaries,
reinstating shorter slope lengths and reducing erosion
risk. As farm machinery can traverse the field strips, this
simple but effective soil erosion control measure may be
adopted willingly by farmers.
Agroforestry systems, in which perennial trees or
shrubs grow alongside annual crops, also help to control
soil erosion. The trees or shrubs form across-slope barriers
to runoff, thus reducing slope lengths and soil losses on
the slope.
Wind Erosion Control. Vegetation is also widely used
to control wind erosion. By exerting a drag on air flow,
vegetation can reduce the velocity of the wind below that
required to initiate erosion and can enhance the deposition
of soil already being carried in the air. The most common
use of vegetation is in the form of shelter belts spaced at
regular intervals at right angles to the direction of the
erosive winds. Traditionally, trees have been used to form
shelterbelts but they need to be supplemented by shrubs
(bushes) and grasses to provide cover close to the ground
surface since some 70–75% of the soil eroded by wind is
carried within the lower 1 m of the atmosphere. The most
important characteristic of a shelterbelt is its density or
porosity. If too dense, the belt acts like a solid wall and
air flowing over the top will create erosive eddies in the
lee. The belt therefore needs to be porous so that some air
passes through the belt but at a low velocity. Conversely,
if the belt is too sparse, the velocity of the wind is not
reduced. A porosity of 40–50% is generally considered
optimum. Belts are usually designed to maintain wind
speeds below 75% of the speeds recorded in open ground.
To achieve this, they need to be spaced at intervals of
between 12 and 17 times the belt height.
While many shelterbelts comprise single rows of trees,
some consist of three rows made up of alternating nurse
trees, durable trees, and bushes. The advantage of these
mixed belts is they can withstand the loss of an individual
species due to disease or pest since other species within
the belt can fill any gaps. They also provide a habitat
for wildlife.
In arable farming, shelterbelts are considered boundary
features and are placed around field edges. However, the
principles of shelterbelts can also be used to design in-field
shelter systems in which crops are alternated on a strip
system, aligned at right angles to the wind. Thus, strips of
barley, spaced at 5–10 m intervals, can be alternated with
strips of carrots, onions, or sugar beet to control erosion.
The barley is sown in late autumn to allow sufficient time
for it to emerge before the main crop is drilled in the spring.
The barley strips reduce wind velocity until the cover of
the main crop is sufficient to protect the soil, at which
point the barley is killed off with a selective herbicide so
that it does not compete with the crop.
Since shelterbelts require a certain amount of time
to grow and become effective, they are not appropriate

where immediate control of wind erosion is required. In
these situations, windbreaks made from brushwood or
plastic netting can be used. The design principles remain
the same, aiming for 40–50% porosity and spacings of
12–17 times the windbreak height. Brushwood fences are
commonly constructed on coastal dunes to reduce wind
velocities and stabilize the mobile sand, which can then
be seeded or planted with shrubs and trees to provide
long-term stability.
Soil Management Methods of Soil Conservation
The inherent susceptibility of a soil to erosion depends
on the soil type and this is difficult to adjust. However,
soil management can affect other factors that can increase
or decrease soil erosion. For example, intensive arable
production can lead to severe soil degradation as soil
is broken down by numerous, invasive tillage practices
into a loose, fine tilth seedbed. The resulting small
soil aggregates are highly susceptible to dispersion,
detachment, and transport by rainfall, runoff, and wind.
Soil structural stability is further reduced by loss of carbon
through oxidation as tillage exposes deeper soil layers to
the air, and by loss of soil faunal biomass destroyed during
soil disturbance.
The way in which soil is managed in arable production
systems therefore has important impacts on soil erosion
control. Farming operations carried out up and down the
slope will increase the risk of runoff generation while
contour cultivations will reduce these risks significantly.
Contour ridging enhances this principle by creating
raised ridges across slope to reduce local slope length,
reduce effective catchment area for runoff generation, and
intercept any runoff that is generated. A development of
contour ridging is the use of ‘‘tied’’ ridges, where the ridges
are joined at regular intervals by ‘‘ties’’ running up and
down slope, so creating small basins that trap runoff and
eroded soil.
Reducing the number and intensity of cultivations may
preserve soil structural stability and aggregation. Less
disturbed aggregates are able to resist the dispersive
forces of rainfall, runoff, and wind as cohesive bonds within
the aggregates are maintained. Soil microorganisms and
macroinvertebrates, which also help bind soil particles
together and increase aggregate stability, are also less
disturbed. Fewer, less invasive cultivations mean more
of the vegetative biomass remains on or within the soil
(in the form of standing stubble, cut stems, and roots)
and is available to absorb the rainfall and runoff energy
otherwise available for soil detachment and transport.
The relative reduction in soil disturbance and retention
of vegetative material on and within the soil are
the principles behind the use of conservation tillage
for the control of soil erosion. This umbrella term
incorporates a continuum of soil management methods
such as minimum tillage, zero tillage, mulch tillage, direct
drilling, noninversion tillage, subsurface mulch tillage,
and plough/plant cultivation. Conservation tillage aims at
maintaining soil fertility and controlling erosion but has
an added aim of reducing input costs to agriculture, as
fewer, less invasive cultivations expend less energy and
fuel costs.
SOIL EROSION AND CONTROL PRACTICES 569
Manipulation of the soil surface condition by tillage is
used to control local wind speeds at the ground surface in
an attempt to control soil loss by wind erosion. On light,
friable soils such as sands and silts, primary cultivations
(ploughing and pressing) are performed in one direction,
followed by drilling at 90◦ to this. The resultant tilth is
rough and cloddy and imparts maximum friction to air
flow, thus reducing wind speed and the ability to detach
soil. Tillage techniques can also be used to minimize water
erosion, for example, the Aqueel minimizes erosion by
maintaining water within surface depressions on the soil
surface (8).
Soil conditioners applied to soils susceptible to erosion
can perform the dual role of enhancing soil fertility
and controlling erosion. Products with high organic
matter (such as seaweed extract and tree bark) add
nutrients and organic matter to inherent soil fertility,
so improving aggregation, structure, porosity, infiltration
capacity, and water holding capacity. Soil conditioners
reduce soil erosion by either increasing runoff infiltration
or increasing resistance to soil detachment. Hydrophilic
soil conditioners include bark, limestone, palm oil effluent,
and seaweed extract, which increase aggregation and
infiltration capacity, so runoff is less likely to occur. The
increase in organic matter from these products also helps
control erosion by increasing cohesive bonds in the soil,
thus improving the stability of aggregates against soil
erosion processes. Hydrophobic soil conditioners, including
latex, emulsions, and molasses, form a water-repellent
film on the soil surface and increase soil resistance to
detachment and transport by rainsplash and runoff.
CONCLUSION
The accelerated loss of soil through water and wind
erosion processes is a globally important phenomenon
with significant and wide-ranging implications for land
and water quality. Controlling the impacts of soil erosion
is therefore imperative. A range of control measures are
presented, illustrating that soil erosion control can be
effectively addressed from a mechanical, agronomic, or soil
conservation perspective, depending on the environment,
skills, time, and resources available.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Imeson, A.C. (1977). Splash erosion, animal activity and
sediment supply in a small forested Luxembourg catchment.
Earth Surf. Proc. Landforms 2(2–3): 153–160.
2. Bryan, R.B. (1979). The influence of slope angle on soil
entrainment by sheet wash and rainsplash. Earth Surf. Proc.
4: 43–58.
3. Palmer, R.S. (1964). The influence of a thin water layer on
water-drop impact forces. Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Publ. 65:
141–148.
4. Morgan, R.P.C. (1995). Soil Erosion and Conservation, 2nd
Edn. Longman, London.
5. Environment Agency. (2002). Agriculture and Natural
Resources: Benefits, Costs and Potential Solutions. Peterbor-
ough, UK.
570 WATER TABLE CONTRIBUTION TO CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

6. Sheng, T.C. (1972). A treatment-oriented land capability
classification scheme. In: Report on the Latin American
Watershed Management Seminar. FAO No. TA3112.
7. Coppin, N.J. and Richards, I.G. (1990). Use of Vegetation in
Civil Engineering. Butterworths, London.
8. Simba, X. (2004). The Aqueel and soil erosion. Available:
http://www.aqueel.com/.
WATER TABLE CONTRIBUTION TO CROP
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
CHANDRA MADRAMOOTOO
Macdonald Campus of McGill
University
Ste-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec,
Canada
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the transfer of water vapor
from the soil root zone to the atmosphere via the process
of photosynthesis. Water vapor can also move directly
from the ground surface to the atmosphere. The rate
of ET depends on several climatic, soil water, and crop
factors, including rainfall, relative humidity, wind speed,
air temperature, solar radiation, cloud cover, soil moisture,
and stage of crop growth. The plant transpires at the
potential rate if soil water is not limiting, which depends
on the soil water content.
Water is held in the soil root zone in three distinct
phases (see Fig. 1): hygroscopic water, capillary water,
and gravitational water. Because of the high tension of
the hydroscopic water, it is not available to plants. Both
capillary water and gravitational water are available for
crop uptake in the ET process.
As the soil water near the soil surface evaporates,
the water content near the surface is reduced and the
moisture tension increases. Consequently, the tension
gradient exceeds the gravitational gradient, and moisture
will move upward from the water table toward the soil
surface. If root zone soil moisture is between field capacity
LIVE GRAPH
Click here to view
1000
Hygroscopic water
100
Moisture tension (bars)
and saturation, the crop will transpire at the potential
rate. In this case, gravitational water contributes to the
ET. However, once the soil moisture drops below field
capacity, ET is met from the capillary water. In shallow
water table soils, the water table contributes to part of
the ET, which is known as capillary rise or upward flux.
Depending on the position of the water table, the soil type,
and the potential ET, part or all of the crop ET may be
met through upward flux. If all ET is not met by upward
flux, the remainder is taken from the capillary water.
As the gravitational water is depleted, and if there is no
supply of water to the soil profile either by precipitation or
irrigation, the water table will continue to drop. The water
table can be further lowered by drainage and seepage.
In arid regions, if irrigation is limited, crops depend on
the upward flux of groundwater to meet ET demands.
However, in regions of deep groundwater, the upward flux
is very small, lower than crop ET, and the plants begin to
wilt. They thus exhibit signs of drought stress.
The basic capillary rise equation (h = 2γ cos α/ρgR)
governs the height of the capillary rise (h) and is a
function of the pore size distribution of the soil particles.
Gardner (1) proposed the following equation to estimate
the steady upward flux from a static water table:
qmax ≈ Aad−n (1)
where qmax is the maximum evapotranspiration rate; A, a,
and n are constants (n is a function of soil texture and is
higher for coarser textured soils); and d is the depth to the
water table.
Equation 1 shows that the ET rate decreases with water
table height and will decrease more strongly for coarse
textured soils. When the water table is close to the soil
surface (low values of d), the maximum ET will be limited
by the prevailing climatic conditions. At lower water table
depths (high values of d), the ET will be limited by the
transmissivity of the soil. Obreza and Pitts (2) developed
relationships between upward flux and water table depth
for four locations in Florida (Fig. 2).
The ability to meet crop ET from shallow water tables
is used in a process known as subsurface irrigation
(subirrigation). By making use of perforated plastic pipes
installed below the soil surface (primarily for drainage),
drainage outflows can either be restricted or water can
be pumped back into the plastic pipes during the growing

season, thus maintaining a shallow water table. Upward

Hygroscopic coefficient
flux from the water table helps to meet the crop ET
Wilting point
10 demands, which is a high energy and water efficient
method of irrigation. Water application efficiency can be as
Capillary water high as 95%. It is also a low-cost irrigation system, because
1
there is no need for additional investments in aboveground
hardware. The only additional cost is a structure on the
0.1 Field capacity tile drain outlet.
Gravitational water The height at which the water table ought to be
maintained depends on the crop. Shallow-rooted vegetable
0.01 crops will need a water table of 30–50 cm below the
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 soil surface. For deeper rooted crops, e.g., corn and
Water flim thickness (mm) soybeans, a water table of 60–75 cm will meet the crop
Figure 1. Soil water potential. (Copyright  1999–2004 Michael ET requirement. Close monitoring of the water table
Pidwirny). depth is advantageous, especially in the wetter humid
 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 571

20 movement is harmful and subsurface drainage is required

Immokalee to lower the water table.
15 In forested regions, and in tree plantations, there could
y = 406635 exp(−17/1x ) be large amounts of ET by the tree canopy, thus lowering
10 the water table. This phenomenon is used in some parts
of the world affected by salinity and water logging. Salt-
5
tolerant trees and shrubs are planted to control water
logging and salinity, which is known as biodrainage.
Modern irrigation practices are being promoted to make
0
better use of the soil as a reservoir to store precipitation
20 and irrigation water. By encouraging field practices that
Basinger
enhance infiltration and improving soil tilth, there is less
15 surface runoff, and more water is stored at shallow depths
that can be extracted by the plants’ roots to meet the
ET demands. This process is also known as rainwater
Daily potential upward flux (mm)

10
harvesting in rainfed agriculture. The overall effect is that
5 water is conserved in the soil rather than in large open
y = 71346 exp(−11.4x ) reservoirs, thus reducing irrigation infrastructure costs,
0 operation and maintenance costs, and water distribution
losses. Higher irrigation efficiencies are thus obtained.
20
Boca
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
10
1. Gardner, W.R. (1958). Some steady state solutions of unsatu-
y = 630 exp (−10.0x )
5 rated moisture flow equations with application to evaporation
from a water table. Soil Sci. 85: 228–232.
2. Obreza, T.A. and Pitts, D.J. (2002). Effective rainfall in poorly
0
drained microirrigated citrus orchards. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
20 66: 212–221.
Malabar
15
CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
10
MLADEN TODOROVIC
Mediterranean Agronomic
5
y = 88543 exp (−20.0x ) Institute of Bari
CIHEAM-IAMB,
0 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Water table depth (m)
Crop evapotranspiration is a physical process in which
Figure 2. Upward flux vs. water table depth for 4 locations in
Florida (2). water passes from the liquid to the gaseous state
while moving from the soil to the atmosphere. It refers
to both evaporation from soil and vegetative surfaces
regions. Should heavy rainfalls occur, the water table and transpiration from plants. These two processes are
may rise into the crop root zone and cause water logging. considered together because they occur simultaneously in
In this case, the tile outlet should be opened to lower nature, and it is difficult to separate them when measured
the water table. The spacing between the tile lines also or estimated.
influences the height of the water table. Narrow-spaced Crop evapotranspiration refers to the water losses
pipe laterals will ensure a more uniform water table from a cropped field, and this term is frequently used in
distribution. In just the same way that soil type influences irrigation scheduling and irrigation water management.
upward flux, so too does it influence the lateral pipe Crop evapotranspiration is affected by weather fac-
spacing. Therefore, the ET rate and the soil type must tors (radiation, air temperature, humidity, and wind
be taken into account when designing a subirrigation speed), crop parameters (crop type, variety, and devel-
system. opment stage), and local environmental and management
Soils affected by salinization and water logging pose a conditions (soil salinity, application of fertilizers, tillage
severe management problem. Salts tend to move upward practices, planting density, presence of diseases and pests,
by capillary action and enter the root zone, thus restricting windbreaks, irrigation practices, presence of groundwater
crop growth and leading to an accumulation of salt in the and impermeable soil horizons, etc.). Accordingly, it is
root zone. Under these conditions, upward groundwater possible to distinguish between crop evapotranspiration
572 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
under standard (optimal) conditions and crop evapotran-
spiration under nonstandard conditions. Standard condi-
tions refer to disease-free, well-fertilized crops, grown in
large fields, under optimal water supply, and achieving full
production for the given climatic conditions. Nonstandard
conditions are defined as those that differ from standard
conditions. Crop evapotranspiration under standard con-
ditions is usually denoted as ETc , and crop evapotranspi-
ration under nonstandard conditions is marked as ETc adj
or ETc corr , where the suffixes ‘‘adj’’ and ‘‘corr’’ refer to
‘‘adjusted’’ and ‘‘corrected,’’ respectively. Standard condi-
tions concur with the optimal conditions of well-managed
irrigation fields, so, crop evapotranspiration under non-
standard conditions is always lower than or equal to crop
evapotranspiration under standard conditions. Therefore,
ETc adj = Ks ETc (1)
where Ks is the reduction coefficient (Ks < 1) that
accounts for the difference between standard and non-
standard conditions.
MEASUREMENTS OF CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Crop evapotranspiration can be determined by measure-
ments and estimates. In general, measurements are car-
ried out at agrometeorological stations and experimental
sites to evaluate estimating procedures and to calibrate
and derive parameters of estimation methods. Different
types of lysimeters and methods based on a water and
energy balance are used to measure crop evapotrans-
piration.
Lysimeters are tanks located in the fields and filled with
soil of the same type as the surroundings. In lysimeters
and their surroundings of at least 100 m around (to
allow the establishment of an equilibrium sublayer), crops
are grown under homogeneous management practices
(standard or nonstandard) to measure the amount of
water lost by evapotranspiration. The lysimeters provide
direct measurements of crop evapotranspiration and
can be grouped in three categories: weighing, where
evapotranspiration is measured by weighing the changes
in soil water content in the tank; nonweighing of a
constant water table where the water table level is
maintained at the same level inside as outside the
lysimeter, and nonweighing of the percolation type, where
water stored in the soil is determined by sampling
or neutron methods and rainfall and percolation are
measured. Weighing lysimeters give the most accurate
estimates for short time periods (e.g., 1 hour), and they are
recommended for arid and semiarid areas; nonweighing
lysimeters of the constant water table type are particularly
suggested for areas where a shallow groundwater table
exists, nonweighing lysimeters of the percolation type are
frequently used in areas of high precipitation.
The water balance method is a direct measurement
technique based on the principles of conservation of mass
which state that the difference in flow into and out
of a controlled volume of soil during a specified time
interval corresponds to the changes in soil moisture.
This method requires monitoring many parameters such
as irrigation water supply, precipitation, surface and
subsurface lateral flow, and deep percolation. The accuracy
of crop evapotranspiration estimates by this method is
usually low due to difficulties in measuring and controlling
one or more terms of the water balance equation.
Energy balance methods are based on the energy
balance equation which states that the net flux density
of radiation is balanced by losses of latent heat, sensible
heat, and by soil heat flux. The Bowen ratio approach is
the commonly used energy balance method. It relies on
the flux gradient theory and expresses the latent heat
flux of evapotranspiration through the measured values
of net radiation, ground heat flux, the difference in air
temperature between two heights above the canopy, and
the corresponding difference in vapor pressure between
the same two heights. This method can be used for
crop evapotranspiration estimates in hourly and shorter
time intervals.
ESTIMATES OF CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
The estimate of crop evapotranspiration relies on the
so-called two-step approach where in the first step, a
reference evapotranspiration is determined and then, in
the second, the crop evapotranspiration (ETc )is calculated
as a product of reference evapotranspiration (ETo ) and
crop coefficient Kc ;
ETc = Kc ETo (2)
In Eq. 2, the reference evapotranspiration term refers
primarily to the climatic demand, and the crop coefficient
accounts mainly for the specific crop characteristics and
partially for the management practices (e.g., frequency of
soil wetness, etc.).
The concepts of reference surface and reference evap-
otranspiration (ETo ) estimates have been evaluated sig-
nificantly during the second half of the twentieth century
when they have passed from free water surface and empir-
ical and semi empirical formulas to a hypothetical crop of
fixed characteristics and more mechanistic equations.
Numerous equations for estimating reference crop
evapotranspiration have been developed and successively
modified to account for specific climatic conditions and
availability of input information. Some of them in
widespread use are presented in Table 1 along with the
required input weather data and recommended timescale
of applications.
In general, the methods for ETo estimates do not have
global validity and require local validation and calibration
when applied in different environments. The accuracy of
an ETo estimate has a strong relation with the number
and quality of required input information, local climatic
conditions, timescale of applications, etc. For example, the
Hargreaves method (1) could be the most appropriate for
monthly ETo estimates, provided that only temperature
data are available. Nevertheless, it should not be used
for daily ETo estimates, especially when days are hot
and dry and wind speed is relevant. The same can be
stated for the radiation method which shows good results
in humid climates and tends to underestimate ETo in

Table 1. Some Methods for Reference Evapotranspiration Estimates, Weather Variables Needed, and Suggested
Timescale of Applicationa
Method Temperature Humidity
Blaney–Criddle + −
Hargreaves + −
Pan evaporation − −
Radiation + −
Penman + +
Penman–Monteith + +
a
+ must be measured; − is not necessary; * estimate required; X recommended timescale of application
arid climates. The pan evaporation method integrates
the effects of different weather variables on evaporation
from a specific free water surface and requires calibration
to account for the local environment. None of these
methods should be used for daily ETo estimates due to
limited input information and approximations introduced
in the equations. For ETo estimates on daily and shorter
timescales, more mechanistic methods are needed that
rely on the full set of input weather variables and combine
both aerodynamic and energy balance principles.
The first physically based combination equation was
derived by Howard L. Penman in 1948 to describe the
evaporation from a free water surface, and until now, this
equation has remained the basis of numerous successive
modifications and approaches. The main drawback of
the Penman approach (2,3) is in the assumption that
the evaporation process originates on the outer surface
of the leaves rather than within their substomatal
cavities. This lack of generality was satisfactorily
overcome by John L. Monteith (4,5), who combined energy
balance, aerodynamic, and surface parameters in an
evapotranspiration equation formally valid for uniform
vegetation of any type, fully covering the ground, and in
any state of water status.
During the last decades of the twentieth century, many
tests around the world have proved the robustness and
consistency of the Penman–Monteith approach (6–9) and
suggested it as the standard method for reference evap-
otranspiration estimates. Consequently, it was recom-
mended to introduce a new concept of reference evapotran-
spiration surface necessary to standardize computational
procedures for estimating reference evapotranspiration.
These procedures should be used in different regions and
climates of the world and thus, avoid ambiguities when
the values of reference evapotranspiration have to be esti-
mated and compared.
New reference surfaces and corresponding methodolo-
gies for evapotranspiration estimates represent the results
of investigation by two groups of scientists:
• the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization)
Expert Group on the Revision of FAO Method-
ologies for Crop Water Requirements, which pub-
lished the FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56
and also made it available on the Internet at
www.fao.org/docrep/X0490E/x0490e00.htm, and
• the ASCE-EWRI (American Society of Civil Engi-
neers—Environmental Water Resources Institute)
CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 573
Timescale
Sunshine or
Wind Speed Radiation Evaporation Hour Day Week Month
− * − X
− * − X
− − + X X
− + − X X
+ + − X X X
+ + − X X X X
Task Committee on Standardization of Reference
Evapotranspiration, which released the first draft
of Technical Report in July 2002.
The FAO Expert Group defined the reference surface as ‘‘a
hypothetical reference crop with an assumed crop height
of 0.12 m, a fixed average surface resistance of 70 s/m
(over 24 hours), and an albedo (reflectance of evaporating
surface) of 0.23’’.
The ASCE-EWRI Task Committee distinguishes
between two reference surfaces: the first is a short crop
with an approximate height of 0.12 m, (similar to clipped
grass and corresponding to most of the reference loca-
tions in the world), and the second is a tall crop with
an approximate height of 0.50 m (similar to full-cover
alfalfa and resembling many reference locations across
the United States).
Then, provided that a standard set of measured
input data is available (including air temperature and
humidity, wind speed and incoming solar radiation), the
reference evapotranspiration (ETo ) can be calculated by
the standardized form of the Penman–Monteith equation:
Cn
0.408(Rn − G) + γ U2 (es − ea )
ETo = T + 273 (3)
 + γ (1 + Cd U2 )
where ETo is the reference evapotranspiration (mm day−1
for a daily time step or mm hour−1 for an hourly time
step), Rn is the net radiation, (MJ m−2 day−1 for a daily
time step or MJ m−2 hour−1 for an hourly time step), G
is the soil heat flux density (MJ m−2 day−1 for a daily
time step or MJ m−2 hour−1 for an hourly time step),
T is the mean daily or hourly air temperature at 1.5
to 2.5 m height ( ◦ C),  is the slope of the saturation
vapor pressure vs. temperature curve (kPa ◦ C−1 ), γ is
the psychrometric constant (=0.066 kPa ◦ C−1 ), es is the
saturated vapor pressure at air temperature (kPa), ea
is the prevailing actual vapor pressure (kPa), U2 is the
mean wind speed measured at 2 m height (m s−1 ), and
Cn and Cd are numerator and denominator constants,
respectively, that change with the type of reference surface
and calculation time step.
Equation 3 represents the simplest way to estimate the
reference evapotranspiration from both reference surfaces
(short and tall vegetation) and for different (hourly and
daily) time steps. The values for Cn and Cd are derived by
simplifying several terms within the Penman–Monteith
574 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

 
Table 2. The Values for Cn and Cd to be Used in 17.28Tmax
Equation 3 (after Ref. 11) es T max = 0.6108 exp
Tmax + 237.3
Short Reference Tall Reference  
17.28 ∗ 28
Surface Surface = 0.6108 exp = 3.78 kPa
(Grass-Like) (Alfalfa-Like)
28 + 237.3
Calculation Time es + es
T min T max
Step Cn Cd Cn Cd es =
2
Daily 900 0.34 1600 0.38 1.60 + 3.78
Hourly during 37 0.24 66 0.25 = = 2.69 kPa
daytime 2
Hourly during 37 0.96 66 1.7
nighttime
The actual vapor pressure is calculated as the average
value of the vapor pressures at Tmin and Tmax :

RHmax 80
ea T min = es T min = 1.60 = 1.28 kPa
equation. They are presented for different reference 100 100
surfaces and various time steps in Table 2. RHmin 50
The calculation procedures for the reference evapo- ea T max = es T max = 3.78 = 1.89 kPa
100 100
transpiration and intermediate meteorological parame-
ea T min + ea T max 1.28 + 1.89
ters (Rn , G, es , ea , , γ , etc.) are reported in many books ea = = = 1.58 kPa
and publications: ASCE Manual 70 (6), FAO 56 (10), the 2 2
ASCE-EWRI Task Committee report (11), etc. Moreover,
Then, for a short (grass-like) reference surface and daily
free software (REF-ET) for standardized calculations of
ETo estimate, the constants Cn and Cd can be obtained
reference evapotranspiration and intermediate parame-
from Table 2 (Cn = 900 and Cd = 0.34), and the reference
ters is available at www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/ref-et. An
evapotranspiration can be estimated from Equation 3 as
example of a reference evapotranspiration estimate using
the standardized form of the Penman–Monteith equation Cn
is given here for both grass-like and alfalfa-like surfaces. 0.408(Rn − G) + γ U2 (eS − ea )
ETo = T + 273
 + γ (1 + Cd U2 )
Example of a Calculation daily (for a location in southern
Italy on June 10, 2002) 0.408 ∗ 0.1528 ∗ (14 − 0)
900
Given: +0.066 ∗ ∗ 1.2 ∗ (2.69 − 1.58)
21 + 273
Net radiation Rn = 14 MJ m−2 day−1 ; soil heat flux =
0.1528 + 0.066 ∗ (1 + 0.34 ∗ 1.2)
G = 0 (can be neglected especially for daily ETo estimates);
minimum air temperature Tmin = 14 ◦ C; maximum air = 4.65 mm/day
temperature Tmax = 28 ◦ C; wind speed at 2 m height
U2 = 1.2 m s−1 ; minimum relative humidity (at Tmax ) Similarly, assuming that the input data remain the same,
RHmin = 50%; maximum relative humidity (at Tmin ) for a tall (alfalfa-like) reference surface, the constants
RHmax = 80%. Cn and Cd can be obtained from Table 2 (Cn = 1600 and
Cd = 0.38), and ETo can be estimated as
Calculation. The slope of the saturation vapor pressure
curve  is calculated for mean air temperature T = Cn
0.408(Rn − G) + γ U2 (eS − ea )
21 ◦ C as ETo = T + 273

  + γ (1 + Cd U2 )
17.27T 0.408 ∗ 0.1528 ∗ (14 − 0)
4098 0.6108 exp
T + 237.3 1600
= +0.066 ∗ ∗ 1.2 ∗ (2.69 − 1.58)
(T + 237.3)2 21 + 273

 =
17.27 ∗ 21 0.1528 + 0.066 ∗ (1 + 0.38 ∗ 1.2)
4098 0.6108 exp
21 + 237.3 = 5.43 mm/day
=
(21 + 237.3)2
= 0.1528 kPa/ ◦ C The example shows that the reference evapotranspiration
is greater from a tall alfalfa-like surface than from a short
grass-like surface. This is due to the fact that both the
The saturation vapor pressure is calculated as the
aerodynamic and surface resistance are lower for the tall
average value of the saturated vapor pressures at Tmin
alfalfa-like surface than for the short grass-like surface.
and Tmax :
The estimate of the reference evapotranspiration on an
  hourly basis can be done by using the same equation
17.28Tmin
es T min = 0.6108 exp and appropriate values for Cn and Cd from Table 2.
Tmin + 237.3 Moreover, the net radiation Rn should be expressed in
 
17.28 ∗ 14 MJ m−1 hour−1 , and the soil heat flux G should be taken
= 0.6108 exp = 1.60 kPa
14 + 237.3 into consideration as a portion of the energy term.
 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 575

The Hargreaves equation represents an alternative parameters which should be validated and eventually
solution for the estimate of reference evapotranspiration calibrated for different locations.
when input data are limited only to the values of
minimum and maximum air temperature (the data widely Example of a Calculation monthly (for a location in southern
available and published in hydrometeorological bulletins Italy in June 2002)
worldwide). This simple empirical equation has shown Given:
good performance when applied on a monthly scale and Minimum and maximum air temperature Tmin = 14 ◦ C
also on shorter timescales (e.g., weekly), when the wind and Tmax = 28 ◦ C; latitude of location is ϕ = 40◦ = 40 ∗
speed is not strong and the climate is humid rather 3.14/180 = 0.697778 rad; the month is June which means
than dry. M = 6.
Besides the minimum and maximum air temperatures
(Tmin and Tmax , respectively), the Hargreaves method (1) Calculation. Using the following sequence of Equations
employs in the estimate the extraterrestrial radiation (Ra ) (6–5–8–7–4), the extraterrestrial radiation (MJ m−2
which is a function of the latitude of the location and day−1 ) is calculated as
the day of the year (Julian day) under consideration that
can be easily obtained from agrometeorological tables or J = integer (30.42M − 15.23)
calculated by using the following set of formulas:
= integer (30.42 ∗ 6 − 15.23) = 167


Ra = 37.586 dr (ωs sin ϕ sin δ + cos ϕ cos δ sin ωs ) (4) 2π
dr = 1 + 0.033 cos J
365
where

2 ∗ 3.14
= 1 + 0.033 cos 167 = 0.96818
365
dr : relative distance Earth–Sun (rad)


 2π
2π δ = 0.4093 sin J − 1.405
dr = 1 + 0.033 cos J (5) 365
365

2 ∗ 3.14
= 0.4093 sin 167 − 1.405 = 0.40715256
J: day of the year (Julian day) number (nondimen- 365
sional), ωs = arccos(− tan ϕ tan δ)

J = integer (30.42M − 15.23) (6) = arccos[(− tan 0.697778)(tan 0.40715256)]

= 0.935331
M: month number (1–12) (nondimensional),
ωs : sunset hour angle (rad), Ra = 37.586dr (ωs sin ϕ sin δ + cos ϕ cos δ sin ωs )
Ra = 37.586 ∗ 0.96818[0.935331(sin 0.697778)
ωs = arccos (− tan ϕ tan δ) (7)
× (sin 0.40715256) + (cos 0.697778)(cos 0.40715256)
ϕ: latitude of location (rad), × (sin 0.935331)] = 29.267
δ: solar declination (rad),

 Then, the average temperature and the latent heat of
2π vaporization are calculated as
δ = 0.4093 sin J − 1.405 (8)
365
Tmin + Tmax 14 + 28
T= = = 21 ◦ C
Then, the widely accepted form of the Hargreaves 2 2
equation for an ETo estimate (mm day−1 ) for a reference
λ = 2.501 − (2.361 ∗ 10−3 )T = 2.501 − 0.049581
grass surface is
= 2.45142 MJkg−1
Ra
ET = 0.0023 (T + 17.8)(Tmax − Tmin )0.5 (9)
λ Finally, the grass reference crop evapotranspiration is

where Ra is the extraterrestrial radiation (MJ m−2 day−1 ), Ra

ET = 0.0023 (T + 17.8)(Tmax − Tmin )0.5
λ is the latent heat of vaporization (MJ kg−1 ) λ
29.267
λ = 2.501 − (2.361 ∗ 10−3 )T (10) ET = 0.0023 (21 + 17.8)(28 − 14)0.5
2.45142
T is the average temperature ( ◦ C) = 3.99 mm/day

Tmin + Tmax This means that the grass reference evapotranspiration

T= (11) on a monthly basis for June 2002 was 3.99 ∗ 30 =
2
119.7 mm month−1 .
and multiplier (0.0023), exponent (0.5), and the value The average daily value of the ETo estimate using
of 17.8 in the second multiplier of the equation are the the Hargreaves method (3.99 mm day−1 ) is significantly
576 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

lower than the value (4.65 mm day−1 ) obtained from the
estimate using the Penman–Monteith equation. This is
due to the fact that the impact of wind speed and humidity
are not taken into consideration in the Hargreaves
equation. However, this equation can be used on a monthly
basis to estimate an average reference evapotranspiration.
Moreover, the estimates of ETo using the Hargreaves
equation can be improved by adapting the parameters to
the local conditions.
The second step in the crop evapotranspiration estimate
is the determination of crop coefficient Kc and the
calculation of ETc by Equation (2). The crop coefficient is
a nondimensional factor that represents the ratio between
the crop and reference evapotranspiration. The crop
coefficient integrates the features of a typical field crop
that change during its growing season and differ from the
characteristics of a reference surface, which has a constant
appearance and is a complete ground cover. These features
comprise the crop height and crop aerodynamic properties
(roughness), albedo (reflectance), canopy resistance, and
soil evaporation from a cropped field.
Kc values vary from crop to crop during the growing
season and depend also on weather conditions and
irrigation practices (Fig. 1). It is possible to distinguish
between the single crop coefficient Kc and the dual crop
coefficient where the Kc is split into the basal crop
coefficient (Kcb ) accounting for crop transpiration and the
evaporation coefficient (Ke ) referring to soil evaporation.
The use of a single Kc approach is recommended in
regular applications for management purposes and the
development of irrigation scheduling; the dual Kc approach
should be applied only for specific purposes (e.g., research)
and on a daily basis.
Kc values for different crops are given in many technical
materials (FAO 24, FAO 33, FAO 56, etc.) referring to
short grass as the reference surface. Nevertheless, it is
important to emphasize that most Kc values reported
in the literature are obtained with the modified Penman
equation (FAO 24) and they should be revised and updated
when used with the FAO Penman–Monteith method or
some other equation for a reference evapotranspiration
estimate. In fact, when crop evapotranspiration has to be
calculated, the Kc values should be applied in conjunction
with the equations with which they were obtained.
The planting months and the lengths of crop develop-
ment stages for some widely distributed species are given
in Table 3, and an indicative list of Kc values for different
crop growth stages is presented in Table 4. The Kc values
are given, assuming that the reference evapotranspiration
is calculated for a grass-like surface. Both tables are
prepared on the basis of the FAO data and some other
investigations. However, these data should be used only
in the absence of more reliable values.
Example of an estimate of evapotranspiration for a tomato
crop growing in the Mediterranean region with the
planting date of April 15th.
Calculation Procedure. The lengths of the growing
stages are taken from Table 3 and Kc values from Table 4.
Then, the growing cycle of tomato can be presented
graphically as in Fig. 2.
The Kc values can be determined daily by using a
simple linear interpolation. For example, on June 10th,
the Kc value is 0.92. Then, assuming that the reference
evapotranspiration is 4.65 mm day−1 (as calculated in
the example here before for the grass-like reference
surface using the Penman–Monteith equation), the tomato
evapotranspiration for June 10th is estimated by using
Eq. 2 as
ETc = Kc ETo = 0.92 ∗ 4.65 = 4.28 mm/day
Finally, if the tomato crop is not growing under
standard (optimal) conditions, the crop evapotranspiration
can be adjusted to the real conditions by applying Eq. 1.
The values of reduction coefficient Ks are always lower
than one and depend on the specific site conditions to
which the crop is exposed during its growing cycle. In
any case, in real management, checking the results of ETc

1.2 Sugar cane

cotton maize
Ha fre

1.0 cabbage, onions

rv sh

apples
es

Frequent
te
d

0.8
Wetting
Kc

0.6 events
dr
ie

0.4
d

In-
frequent
0.2
25 40 60 %
(Short)
Ground cover
Crop
develop- Late season
Initial ment Midseason (long)

Main factors affecting K c in the 4 growth stages

Figure 1. Main factors affecting the crop coefficient Soil Ground cover Crop type
Crop type
(Kc ) during the four growing stages (adapted from evapo- plant (humidity)
harvesting date
ration development (wind speed)
FAO 56).
Table 3. Planting Months and Lengths of Crop Development Stages for Some Important Crops in Different Regions of the
World (Adapted from FAO 56)
Length of Crop Development Stages
Planting
Crop Month Initial Develop. Mid Late Total Region

Tomato January 30 40 40 25 135 Arid regions

Apr/May 35 40 50 30 155 Calif., USA
January 25 40 60 30 155 Calif. desert, USA
Oct/Nov 35 45 70 30 180 Arid regions
April/May 30 40 45 30 145 Mediterranean
Potato Jan/Nov 25 30 30/45 30 115/130 Semiarid climate
May 25 30 45 30 130 Continental climate
April 30 35 50 30 145 Europe
Apr/May 45 30 70 20 165 Idaho, USA
December 30 35 50 25 140 Calif. desert, USA
Sugar beet March 30 45 90 15 180 Calif., USA
June 25 30 90 10 155 Calif., USA
September 25 65 100 65 255 Calif. desert, USA
April 50 40 50 40 180 Idaho, USA
May 25 35 50 50 160 Mediterranean
November 45 75 80 30 230 Mediterranean
November 35 60 70 40 205 Arid regions
Soybeans Dec 15 15 40 15 85 Tropics
May 20 30/35 60 25 140 Central USA
June 20 25 75 30 150 Japan
Cotton March–May 30 50 60 55 195 Egypt, Pakistan, Calif.
March 45 90 45 45 225 Calif. desert, USA
September 30 50 60 55 195 Yemen
April 30 50 55 45 180 Texas
Sunflower April/May 25 35 45 25 130 Medit., Calif.
Barley/Oats/Wheat November 15 25 50 30 120 Central India
March/April 20 25 60 30 135 35–45◦ Lat.
July 15 30 65 40 150 East Africa
April 40 30 40 20 130
November 40 60 60 40 200
December 20 50 60 30 160 Calif. desert
Winter Wheat December 20 60 70 30 180 Calif., USA
November 30 140 40 30 240 Mediterranean
October 160 75 75 25 335 Idaho, USA
Maize (grain) April 30 50 60 40 180 East Africa (alt.)
Dec/Jan 25 40 45 30 140 Arid climate
June 20 35 40 30 125 Nigeria (humid)
October 20 35 40 30 125 India (dry, cool)
April 30 40 50 30 150 Spain, Calif.
April 30 40 50 50 170 Idaho, USA
Sorghum May/June 20 35 40 30 130 USA, Pakis., Medit.
March/April 20 35 45 30 140 Arid regions
Rice Dec; May 30 30 60 30 150 Tropics; Medit.
May 30 30 80 40 180 Tropics
Grapes April 20 40 120 60 240 Low latitudes
March 20 50 75 60 205 Calif., USA
May 20 50 90 20 180 High latitudes
April 30 60 40 80 210 Midlatitudes (wine)
Citrus January 60 90 120 95 365 Mediterranean
Apples/Pears March 20 70 90 30 210 High latitudes
March 20 70 120 60 270 Low latitudes
March 30 50 130 30 240 Calif., USA
Olives March 30 90 60 90 270 Mediterranean

577
578 CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Table 4. Indicative Crop Coefficient Values for Different Growing Stages of Some Important Crops under Optimal
Management Conditions and Reference ET Calculated for a Grass-like Surface (Adapted mainly from the FAO 56)
a
Crop Kc initial Kc mid Kc end Maximum Crop Height (m)

Tomato 0.4–0.6 1.15–1.20 0.70–0.90 0.60

Potato 0.4–0.6 1.15 0.60–0.70 0.40
Sugar beet 0.4–0.5 1.20 0.70 0.50
Soybean 0.3–0.5 1.15 0.50 0.5–1.0
Cotton 0.4–0.5 1.15–1.20 0.60–0.70 1.2–1.5
Sunflower 0.3–0.5 1.0–1.15 0.40 2.0
Barley 0.3–0.5 1.15 0.25 1.0
Oats 0.3–0.5 1.15 0.25 1.0
Spring Wheat 0.3–0.5 1.15 0.25–0.40b 1.0
Winter Wheat
• with frozen soils 0.4 1.15 0.25–0.40b 1
• with nonfrozen soils 0.7 1.15 0.25–0.40b 1
Maize, Field 0.3–0.5 1.20 0.35–0.60c 2.0
Sorghum
• grain 0.3–0.5 1.0–1.10 0.55 1–2
• sweet 0.3–0.5 1.20 1.05 2–4
Rice 1.05 1.20 0.90 1.0
Grapes
• table or raisin 0.30 0.85 0.45 2.0
• wine 0.30 0.70 0.45 1.5–2.0
Citrus, no ground cover
• 70% canopy 0.70 0.65 0.70 4
• 50% canopy 0.65 0.60 0.65 3
• 20% canopy 0.50 0.45 0.55 2
Citrus, active ground cover or weeds
• 70% canopy 0.75 0.70 0.75 4
• 50% canopy 0.80 0.80 0.80 3
• 20% canopy 0.85 0.85 0.85 2
Apples/Pears
• no ground cover, killing frost 0.45 0.95 0.70 4
• no ground cover, no frost 0.60 0.95 0.75 4
• active ground cover, killing frost 0.50 1.20 0.95 4
• active ground cover, no frost 0.80 1.20 0.85 4
Olives (40 to 60% ground cover) 0.65 0.70 0.70 3–5
a
The higher values should be adopted when the surface is frequently wetted.
b
The higher value is for the hand-harvested crop.
c
The higher value is for harvesting at high grain moisture.

estimates obtained from equations with the results of on- BIBLIOGRAPHY

field monitoring of soil and/or plant water status is highly
1. Hargreaves, G.H. and Samani, Z.A. (1985). Reference crop
recommended.
evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1:
96–99.
2. Penman, H.L. (1948). Natural evaporation from open water,
August 7th
June 24th

bare soil, and grass. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 193:

1.4 120–146.
3. Penman, H.L. (1953). The Physical Basis of Irrigation
Sept. 6th

1.2 Control. 13th Int. Hort. Congr., Vol. 2, pp. 913–922.

1 4. Monteith, J.L. (1965). Evaporation and atmosphere. In: The
State and Movement of Water in Living Organisms. Symp.
April 15th

May 15th

0.8 Soc. Exp. Biol., XIX, pp. 205–234.

June 10th
Kc

5. Monteith, J.L. (1973). Principles of Environmental Physics.

0.6 Edvard Arnold, London.
0.4 6. Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D., and Allen, R.G. (1990). Evap-
Initial Development otranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements. ASCE
Mid Late
0.2 Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practices, N◦ 70. Amer-
ican Society Civil Engineers, New York.
0 7. Smith, M., Allen, R.G., Monteith, J.L., Perrier, A., Pereira,
April May June July August September
L.S., and Segeren, A. (1991). Report of the Expert Consultation
Figure 2. The evaluation of Kc values of a tomato crop during on Procedures for Revision of FAO Guidelines for Prediction
the growing season. of Crop Water Requirements. UN-FAO, Rome, Italy.

8. Choisnel, E., de Villele, O., and Lacroze, F. (1992). Une
Approche Uniformise’e du Calcul de L’évapotranspiration
Potentielle pour L’ensemble des Pays de la Communauté
Européenee, Com. Commun, Européennes. EUR 14223 FR,
Luxembourg.
9. Allen, R.G., Smith, M., Perrier, A., and Pereira, L.S. (1994).
An update for the definition of reference evapotranspiration.
ICID Bull. 43(2): 1–34.
10. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998).
Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop
Water Requirements. FAO Technical Paper 56, UN-FAO
Rome, Italy.
11. ASCE Task Committee for Standardization of Reference
Evapotranspiration. (2002). The ASCE Standardized Refer-
ence Evapotranspiration Equation. Environmental and Water
Resources Institute of American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, Reston, VA.
WATER POLLUTION FROM FISH FARMS
ASBJØRN BERGHEIM
RF-Rogaland Research
Stavanger, Norway
ALEXANDER BRINKER
Fischereiforschungsstelle des
Landes Baden-Württemberg
Langenargen, Germany
WASTE OUTPUT
Wastes from aquaculture plants include all materials used
in the process that are not removed from the system
during harvest. The principle wastes from aquaculture
are uneaten feed, excreta, chemicals, and therapeutics. In
addition, the term ‘‘waste’’ can also refer to pathogens and
dead or escaped fish.
Generally, the quantity of waste is closely connected to
the culture system used. Intensive farm systems, typically
monoculture of carnivorous finfish in the temperate
zone reliant on artificial feed, may cause serious local
pollution. So-called semi-intensive farm systems are
supplied natural feed sources, such as vegetation, oil cakes,
cereal bran, and organic-chemical fertilizers. The latter
systems dominate the tropical/subtropical production of
herbivorous or omnivorous fish, e.g., the major production
of carps and tilapia, and the waste output to the
surrounding waters is much lower than from intensive
fish farms. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the nutrient
budget is estimated for intensive farms (cage or flow-
through raceway systems) and for semi-intensive farms
(Nile tilapia produced in static pond water). In highly
intensive farms, as much as 74–84% of the nutrient inputs
are released into surrounding waters, whereas only 2–6%
of the nutrients are released from semi-intensive farms.
Semi-intensive production of carps takes place mostly in
static ponds only drained during harvest, where supplied
nutrients not assimilated in fish are mainly trapped in
the pond sediments. The Chinese production of carps and
tilapia in freshwater constitutes more than one third of
the global aquaculture production (China: 12 million MT
WATER POLLUTION FROM FISH FARMS 579
Nitrogen
100
80 Semi-intensive
Intensive
% of input
60
40
20
0
Fish System Water
Phosphorus
100
Semi-intensive
80 Intensive
% of input
60
40
20
0
Fish System Water
Figure 1. A comparison of the nutrient budget of a semi-intensive
and an intensive aquaculture system (see text). After Edwards (2).
in 1997, 1). Thus, the retained fraction of nutrients in the
pond sediments is vital to avoid serious water pollution.
In distinct regions, fish farms represent a dominating
water pollution source. Along the western and northern
coast of Norway, cage farming of salmon and trout
contributed about 55% of P and 17% of N of the total input
in 1998 (see Fig. 2). Since then, the annual production has
increased from c. 400,000 MT to c. 600,000 MT. The total
nutrient input to this part of the coastline has strongly
increased over the last 20 years because of the growing
aquaculture industry. The average specific loading was
10.8 kg P and 52.0 kg N per ton of produced fish. For
population equivalents (p.e.):6000 p.e. as Total P and 4000
p.e. as Total N per MT produced fish. Besides, uneaten
feed and feces from cage farms load the recipient with
biodegradable organic matter that may lead to significant
oxygen depletion [corresponds to 300–500 kg as BOD7 per
MT produced fish, (4)].
A wide range of chemicals are used in the aquacul-
ture industry, including disinfectants, chemotherapeu-
tants (antibacterial, antifungal, and antiparasitic com-
pounds), pigments incorporated into feeds, and compounds
employed in and applied to construction materials (e.g.,
antifoulants) (5). Of particular interest is the use of
chemotherapeutants because of the quantities discharged
into the aquatic environment. In Norway, the only coun-
try that has kept records, around 50 MT of antibacterials
were introduced into the coastal environment by the
aquaculture industry in 1987. The use has, however,
fallen to below 1 MT annually because of development
of efficient vaccines against bacterial diseases. In semi-
intensive, tropical freshwater farms, antibacterials are
sparsely applied.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Most reported studies of environmental effects are related
to intensive aquaculture. The quality of wastes from
fish farms and its temporal variability are important
580 WATER POLLUTION FROM FISH FARMS

Nutrients emitted from cage farms are found to

Background
(non-cultivated areas)
Tons/year Aquaculture
500 Agriculture
250 Municipal wastewater
50 Industry
N mussel) operation.
0 100 200 Kilometers
Figure 2. Estimated phosphorus inputs to the Norwegian coastal
waters from the main sources in 1998 (3).
determinants of environmental impacts (6). Aquaculture
wastes are rich in P with a TP/TN ratio of around 5. Thus,
fish farms have been expected to be a potential source for
eutrophication in freshwater sources as P is the limiting
nutrient. Generally, the eutrophication rates in lakes and
reservoirs influenced by fish farming seem to be lower
than those predicted by lake models. Håkanson et al. (7)
observed very little, if any, increased concentrations of TP
in two Swedish lakes influenced by cage farm emissions.
The main causes seemed to be linked to (1) direct uptake
of feces and waste feed from farmed fish by wild fish,
and (2) a significant amount of P from the cages that are
eliminated from the lake water by different processes, e.g.,
sedimentation.
be highly biologically available for marine algae (8):
The bioavailability of P in effluent from aquaculture,
agriculture, and municipal sewage was 50/60%, 30%, and
65/70%, respectively, whereas more than 80% of N in all
effluent types was available for algal growth. Despite that
aquaculture is the dominating nutrient source along the
western-northern coast of Norway, the cage farms are
located in a zone with huge water exchange (The Gulf
Stream) and large recipient capacity.
Deposition of solids from cage farms may strongly
effect the benthic ecosystems beneath the cages (6). Such
materials have shown to increase the extent of anaerobic
sediment layers with dramatic consequences for the
original biological communities. Under intensive cage
farms, the bacterial activity in anaerobic sediments often
causes out-gassing of methane and hydrogen sulphide.
In addition, sedimentary phosphorus might be released
at oxygen depletion in deeper water. Studies of benthic
communities all indicate that detrimental impacts are
limited to the immediate vicinity of the intensive cage (or
Among other consequences of modern aquaculture
are environmental effects caused by antibiotic use, e.g.,
drug residues in water, sediments and organisms, and
introduction of exotic species for aquaculture purposes.
Welcomme (9) reported that 98 species of fish had been
introduced internationally involving inland waters. Also,
accidentally or deliberately released farmed fish can affect
their local wild forms by behavior and genetic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
A wide range of regulations and standards control fish
farming and the discharge of effluent in parts of the
world, such as North America and Europe. Aquaculture
relies on precious water resources, and; as populations
increase, access to good quality water and the ability to
discharge effluents will become more restrictive. In many
countries, aquaculture legislation is poorly developed.
During the last few years, however, interest has grown
to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for
aquaculture whose goals should be to protect the industry,

Table 1. Governmental Regulations for Fish Farm Effluents in Some European Countries per 1999 (11)
Country

Criteria B DK F GR IRL NL N S SF UK

Limitation of production § § § § §
Effluent treatment § § § § § § §
Limitation of N and P load § § § § § § § §
Limitation of organic load § § § § § § § §
Feed composition § § § §
Feed conversion ratio § § § §
Environmental impact assessment § § § § § §
Rules for usage of chemicals § § §
Monitoring of effluent water § § § §
Taxes on effluent water and/or feeds § § § §

B: Belgium, DK: Denmark, F: France, GR: Greece, IRL: Ireland, NL: Holland, N: Norway, S: Sweden, SF: Finland, UK: United Kingdom.

the environment, other resource users, and the consumer,
and to clarify rules for resource use (10).
A brief review of regulations controlling discharge of
effluent from fish farms in ten European countries is
presented in Table 1.
The waste load from fish farms can also be reduced by
effluent treatment attempts (see WASTE WATER TREATMENT
IN FISH FARMS).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. FAO. (2000). FISHSTATE Plus—Version 2.3. Available:
http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/fishplus.asp.
2. Edwards, P. (1993) In: Environment and Aquaculture in
Developing Countries, ICLARM Conf. Proc. R.S.V. Pullin,
H. Rosenthal, and J.L. Maclean (Eds.). Vol. 31, pp. 139–170.
3. NIVA. (2000). Report from Norwegian Institute for Water
Research, O-98140, Oslo, Norway.
4. Aasgaard, T. and Bergheim, A. (1996). In: Aquaculture and
Water Resource Management. D.J. Baird, M.C.M Beveridge,
L.A. Kelly, and J.F. Muir (Eds.). Blackwell Science, London,
UK, pp. 50–80.
5. Beveridge, M.C.M. (1996). Cage Aquaculture, 2nd Edn.
Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science Ltd, London, UK.
6. Costa-Pierce. (1996).
7. Håkanson, L., Carlsson, L., and Johansson, T. (1998). A new
approach to calculate the phosphorus load to lakes from fish
farm emissions. Aquacultural Eng. 17: 149–166.
8. NIVA. (1992). Report from Norwegian Institute for Water
Research, O-89156, Oslo, Norway.
9. Welcomme, R.L. (1988). International Introductions of Inland
Aquatic Species. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 294. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
10. Kongkeo, H. (2001). In: Aquaculture in the Third Millen-
nium. R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough,
S.E. McGladdery, and J.R. Arthur (Eds.). NACA/FAO,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 267–293.
11. Bergheim, A. and Brinker, A. (2003). Effluent treatment
for flow through systems and European environmental
regulations. Aquacultural Eng. 27: 61–77.
WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS
JACOB W. KIJNE
Herts, United Kingdom
EXTENT OF IRRIGATION
Irrigation is the artificial watering of land by technical
means, such as canals, pumps, sprinklers, or drip systems,
to supply moisture to crops. Surface irrigation, such as
basin and furrow irrigation, in which water is led to the
fields through canals and ditches, has been practiced for
over two millennia.
About 20% of the world’s agricultural land is irrigated,
but some 40% of the food and fiber production worldwide
takes place on irrigated land. For cereal production, it
is close to 60% (1). FAO expects this share to increase
further in the next three decades. Much of this expansion
will take place in developing countries, increasing their
WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS 581
irrigated land perhaps by as much as 20% before 2030.
This is a net expansion, which implies that agricultural
land lost to urban growth and soil salinization will be
compensated.
At present, more than 60% of the world’s irrigated
land is in Asia. Table 1 shows the ten top countries and
river basins in terms of irrigated land area. About two
thirds of the irrigated land in Asia is devoted to rice and
wheat production.
Worldwide, about 70% of water withdrawals is supplied
to agriculture. Table 2 shows for the ten top irrigation
countries the total water withdrawal (for agriculture,
industrial, and domestic use) as a percentage of the
renewable water resource in the country and the
percentage of this total withdrawal used in agriculture.
Although food production to 2020 is expected to increase
faster in developing countries than in developed countries,
experts suggest that food production will not keep pace
with demand. In 1999/2000, developing countries produced
55% of the world grain production and accounted for 61% of
world grain consumption. They also imported 231 million
tons of grain, equivalent to 72% of worldwide imports,
which suggests that developing countries although playing
a major role in irrigated agriculture production still
depend on international agricultural trade for their food
security.
DIFFERENT METHODS OF IRRIGATION
The three main types of irrigation are canal (or
surface) irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, and trickle or
drip irrigation. In canal irrigation, water is distributed
through a network of canals, consisting of one or more main
canals conveying water from the source (e.g., a reservoir
or a barrage in a river), distributary (secondary) canals
from the outlets in the main canal, tertiary canals (called
watercourses in the Indian subcontinent) from the outlets
in the distributary canals to the farm gate, and field canals.
Canal irrigation systems have lower construction and
operating costs, simpler maintenance, and lower skilled
labor demands than do pressurized delivery systems. A
disadvantage of canal irrigation over piped systems is
that the soil must convey and infiltrate the water over the
fields. Because soil properties are highly variable, both
spatially and temporally, designing water-efficient surface
irrigation at the farm level is complicated. Much research
has been done on determining the optimum flow rate for
a given length of furrow and vice versa. It is now claimed
that in furrow irrigation design, it is possible to attain an
application efficiency (i.e., the ratio of the average depth
of water applied to the root zone, and the average depth
of water applied to the field) of about 70% (2). However,
the reality in the field is probably different. Application
efficiency refers to the average depths of application,
but the uniformity of distribution is also important. It
expresses the often large differences in the depths of
water stored in the root zone along the length of the
fields resulting from local differences in soil structure
and texture and variable infiltration amounts in low
and high spots in the field. Precision land leveling and
automatic devices (e.g., for the release of surge flows) have
582 WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS

Table 1. Top Ten Countries and River Basins for Irrigated Land
Country Area (million ha) % of World Total River Basin Area (million ha)

India 59 21 Yangtze 31
China 54 20 Mekong 23
United States 22 8 Xi jiang 19
Pakistan 18 6 Ganges 11
Iran 8 3 Irriwaddy 10
Mexico 6.5 2 Brahmaputra 9
Indonesia 4.8 2 Yellow river 9
Thailand 4.8 2 Indus 8
Turkey 4.5 1.5 Chao Praya 7.5
Bangladesh 4 1.5 Krishna 6

Source: FAOSTAT On-line Statistical Service (http://apps.fao.org) and IWMI, 2002. World Irrigation and Water Statistics 2002, International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Table 2. Water Withdrawal as Percentage of Renewable an irrigation system that would provide some water to
Water Resource, and its Share Supplied to Irrigation many farmers to assure the main harvest and revenue
Percent of Water Percent of Total collection for the colonial power with a minimum of
Resource Withdrawn Withdrawal Supplied to control and regulation. In the Asian subcontinent, this was
Country (2000) Agriculture (1995) achieved through a form of timed rotation of a continuous
flow to different watercourses, in which a shortfall in
India 26 96
supplies is shared equally by all users. The system was
China 19 89
USA 17 41
not expected to provide enough water for maximum yields.
Pakistan 70 96 From the 1950s, irrigation rapidly expanded, especially
Iran 54 95 in Asia. The peak in funding by the international
Mexico 17 85 development banks for construction of irrigation occurred
Indonesia 3 94 in the 1970s and 1980s. Internal rates of return on
Thailand 8 85 irrigation projects between 1965 and 1985 were in the
Turkey 15 83 range of 12–25% (6). This period coincided with the green
Bangladesh 1 96 revolution in Asia when cereal production increased many
Source: same as Table 1. fold as a result of the introduction of high yielding varieties
of rice and wheat, enhanced fertilizer use, and improved
irrigation systems. During this period, irrigation’s main
improved attainable application efficiency and uniformity objectives were to obtain maximum yields per unit land
of distribution, while reducing the labor requirements of through high water and fertilizer inputs. Concurrently,
surface irrigation (3). extensive research was done to determine and predict
Sprinkler irrigation and drip (trickle) irrigation elimi- water requirements and evapotranspiration rates, i.e.,
nate the need for land leveling and allow more frequent evaporation from the soil and transpiration from the
water application without alternating saturation and des- growing crop. This topic was central to the efforts to
iccation of the upper soil layers. But most importantly, match irrigation supplies as closely as possible with
these newer methods have improved attainable applica- the evaporative demand of the environment to maximize
tion efficiencies and, hence, lose less water. Nowadays, crop production.
commercial crops that were traditionally furrow irrigated After about 1985, irrigation investments dropped
are increasingly irrigated by drip irrigation methods. For sharply because of lower grain prices (from which the
example, a subsurface drip irrigation system was chosen urban population benefited more than the farmers),
to replace furrow and sprinkler irrigation systems on a rising construction costs, and hence lower returns on
commercial sugarcane estate in Swaziland. A postinvest- investments. Growing opposition to further large-scale
ment evaluation indicated that sucrose content increased irrigation projects, such as the Namada in India and the
by 15% and that 22% less water was used in the drip sys- Three Gorges Dam in China, contributed to this reduced
tem than in the sprinkler irrigation system it replaced (4). interest in irrigation investments. Although investments
Similar yield increases and water savings were noted in slowed, irrigation development in Asia nevertheless
drip irrigated corn (maize) in a project in arid southeast continued unabated. Experience and research have shown
Anatolia, Turkey (5). that supportive policies and laws have at least as
much effect on irrigation development as does the
CHANGES IN IRRIGATION OBJECTIVES OVER TIME availability of international investments. Specifically,
national priorities, strength in the rule of law, a free
In the colonial period, the dominant reason for installing market economy, local and user participation in planning
irrigation was to prevent famines during drought years. An and management, as well as encouragement of the
additional concern was flood control in the deltas of the big private sector have been shown to stimulate irrigation
rivers in Asia and Africa. Famine prevention necessitated development (7).

Pumped groundwater is increasingly used for irriga-
tion. This increase has been at such an extent that many
groundwater resources are now overexploited. Recycled
drainage water and wastewater have also been added as
possible sources of irrigation water. Generally, some treat-
ment of wastewater has been deemed necessary before it
can safely be used in crop production. But many developing
countries do not have or enforce regulations covering the
use of wastewater, or lack the resources to treat wastew-
ater adequately. From the 1990s, the irrigation strategy
focused on the control and integrated management of all
water resources for agricultural and nonagricultural uses,
which made irrigation managers realize that low irriga-
tion efficiencies on the farm do not imply that water is
wasted. If the drainage flow is fed back into the canal
and reused downstream, and seepage to the groundwa-
ter is recycled by pumping, the relevant parameter is no
longer application efficiency at the farm level but at the
subsystem or system level, or even at the river basin level.
For example, the Nile valley in Egypt with its notoriously
inefficient irrigation at the farm level has a basin level
application efficiency of about 95% because of its extensive
reuse of drainage water (8). Hence very little water, and of
no further use because of its low quality, is discharged into
the Mediterranean Sea. These examples from Third World
countries follow earlier developments of a similar nature
in the United States and Australia (e.g., respectively, the
Imperial Irrigation District with the Colorado River, and
the Murray-Darling Basin).
IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Performance parameters express the degree to which the
objectives of irrigation are met. The chosen parameters
are usually limited to those pertaining to performance of
the irrigation infrastructure and the system management.
Because of its large data requirement, the variability
in performance among farmers and for different crops
is rarely studied. In one instance, where available
information allowed quantification of the way farmers
managed their irrigation supplies, it was found that
around half the cotton farmers irrigated either excessively
or deficiently although the average performance was close
to the optimum for maximum yield per unit land (9).
Excessive irrigation was also found in the Gezira irrigation
system in Sudan. Here the variation was attributed
to unattended furrow irrigation, aging infrastructure
causing siltation, and weed growth in the canals (10).
Large variabilities among farmers obviously indicate a
significant potential for improvement.
In protective irrigation systems (implying proportional
sharing of a limited resource among the widest number
of people), performance is evaluated by measuring the
flow rates that reach the tail ends of watercourses. This
measurement assesses the equity of distribution of the
available water to as many farmers as possible. Head-
tail differences in water supplies continue to be the
case in many large-scale irrigation systems. Failure to
recognize and address equity considerations (i.e., fairness
as understood by the farmers) in performance assessment
WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS 583
has been a major cause of problems in operation and
maintenance of irrigation system.
When the irrigation objective in the second half of the
twentieth century shifted from protective to productive
irrigation (involving the right to maximum economic
return for a limited number of farmers), the performance
parameter of choice became the yield per unit of land.
Toward the end of the century, water for all uses
became a major concern, and irrigation management
came to be seen as one element of integrated water
resource management. At the same time, performance
assessment of irrigation systems was no longer based
only on profitability and revenue collection, but it came
to include the social objectives of food security, poverty
alleviation, and environmental protection.
Because of increasing pressure on available water
resources, irrigation managers worldwide are now com-
pelled to improve the performance of their systems. The
list of performance parameters has consequently grown
and includes all aspects of maintenance and operation of
the infrastructure, output per unit irrigation water and
per unit of land, financial aspects (e.g., cost recovery), and
environmental performance (e.g., quality and quantity of
drainage flows). Benchmarking, using a standard against
which performance can be assessed, has now been applied
to irrigation management. By comparing with the norm, it
attempts to identify deficiencies in a system’s infrastruc-
ture and organizational structures. Benchmarking thus
intends to make continuous improvements, especially in
the quality and reliability of the services provided to the
farmers. It also intends to stimulate an institutional cul-
ture that supports innovation and reliability in service
providers (11).
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
Three main types of irrigation management can be
distinguished: commercial estates producing usually one
crop (e.g., sugarcane, cotton, tobacco, pineapples, etc.),
canal irrigation systems with many small farmers, and
individual farmers managing their source of irrigation
water, usually a tubewell or small reservoir. Of these,
large-scale canal irrigation systems cover the largest
area, especially in Asia, and provide employment to
millions of people. Improvements in the management of
these systems could have a major beneficial impact on
food production. This type of management, usually done
by state organizations such as irrigation departments,
has therefore received the most attention. Common
institutional deficiencies in water resource management
are described elsewhere (12).
Along field channels, and often significantly above
the field channels, farmers control the actual operation
of the system. In that part of the system that is
controlled by management, including reservoirs and the
main and secondary (or distributary) canals, considerable
discrepancy often exists between the nominal rules and
procedures incorporated in the design and the actual
operation of the system.
Because of widespread dissatisfaction with state
management of irrigation systems, financial institutions
584 WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS
who invested in irrigation development have stimulated
state agencies since the 1990s to hand over all or part
of irrigation management to the private sector. Greater
participation of the farmers in system management and
user-operated and managed irrigation systems as found
in developed countries are examples to be followed in the
Third World. Privatization was expected to lower the cost
of service provision to the farmers while increasing its
quality. Conditions for success of privatization include:
— A legal framework either existing or tailor-made
to provide the legal background for enforce-
able contracts
— Quality control and other regulations
— Active participation of the farmers in the implemen-
tation of the changes
— Institutions that control and enforce the rules and
regulations
— Rights to water and use of the infrastructure
— Impartial adjudication of disputes
— Sound arrangements about the financial respon-
sibilities regarding maintenance of the irrigation
infrastructure (13)
An alternative to complete privatization was introduced
in Pakistan where irrigation system management was
decentralized and the participation of farmers in sys-
tem management was promoted. Management at some
secondary canal level was handed over to the farmers’
organizations. A recent evaluation of one of these sites
indicates that the water distribution and allocation has
become more equitable as a result of the handover, which is
particularly beneficial to tail-end farmers (14). Additional
benefits were that illegal tampering of outlets had almost
ceased, and that cost recovery had improved significantly.
However, experience with irrigation management transfer
elsewhere in developing countries has not been uniformly
positive. Different performance parameters show improve-
ment in some systems but decline in others. In some
systems, an increase in farmers’ fees for operation and
maintenance and in fee collection has occurred, but nev-
ertheless major maintenance is deferred. The effect of
management transfer on agricultural production and farm
income is equally uncertain.
In recent years, many countries have gained experience
with institutional reform of their water sectors, including
Australia, India, Philippines, Malaysia, Turkey, Mexico,
Argentina, and Chili. Institutional changes will continue
to shift toward user-management and water markets,
with a more regulatory role for the state. Although
the long-term impact of these various efforts has not
yet been assessed, the Australian experience clearly
demonstrates that if farmers are to pay for the full cost of
irrigation services, the irrigation agencies have to become
accountable to them.
SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE OF IRRIGATED
AGRICULTURE
Irrigated agriculture competes for water with other uses
and often contributes to degradation of land and water
resources. The net social benefit of irrigated agriculture
is the difference between returns to the farmer and
society as a whole, and the cost to society associated
with its negative aspects (e.g., the cost of disposal of
saline and polluted drainage water). Because no general
agreement exists on the real benefits and costs of
irrigated agriculture, whether irrigated agriculture is
sustainable in the long run has become controversial.
Many definitions of sustainability exist. A strict definition
is that sustainability is achieved when irrigation and
drainage are conducted on-farm and within irrigation
districts, in a manner that does not degrade the quality
of land, water, and other resources (15). Others define
sustainability of irrigated agriculture as the ability to
continue extracting net positive returns from water and
land for an indefinite period of time (16). In contrast to
the first definition, the latter one is not inconsistent with
some degree of environmental degradation, which implies
that it is not necessarily true for all ecosystems that the
optimal rate of degradation is zero.
Linked with this issue of sustainability is the question
of whether there is enough irrigable land and water for
future needs. FAO studies (17) suggest there is still scope
for expanding irrigation to satisfy future needs. Their
estimates suggest that in developing countries, only half
of the potential irrigated land (about 400 million ha) is in
use. Moreover, only 20% of this presently unused potential
area will be in production by 2030. This assessment takes
into account the limitations imposed by the availability of
water. In the developing countries as a whole, only about
7% of renewable water resources were withdrawn (18) for
irrigation. And the projection is a 14% increase in water
withdrawals for irrigation by 2030. Water availability is
considered critical when at least 40% of the renewable
resource is used for irrigation. Of the countries listed
in Table 2, the situation is critical only in Pakistan and
Iran. FAO expects this to be the case for all of South
Asia and West Asia/North Africa by 2030. Although a
14% increase in water withdrawn for irrigation over a
period of 30 years may not appear to be much, the
development of additional resources will be increasingly
difficult. For example, monsoonal river discharges are
part of the unutilized resource, but they are extremely
expensive to capture.
In another study (19), the potential demand (i.e.,
without water supply constraints) and actual consumption
(realized demand given the limitations in supply, and
calculated for consumption rather than withdrawal) of
irrigation water were assessed. This study expects the
potential demand in developing countries to grow by 12%,
but the actual consumption should grow less because of
water scarcity and improvements in yields per unit water.
The difference in growth of the potential and realized
demands leads over time to lower values of the proportion
of the potential demand realized in actual consumption
of irrigation water, as shown in Table 3. The expected
improvements in water productivity (kg/m3 ) in irrigated
cereal production range from about one third in sub-
Saharan Africa to two thirds in South Asia.
With respect to the potential for irrigation expansion in
the industrial countries, most studies agree that there

Table 3. Proportion of Potential Demand Realized in
Actual Consumption
1995 2025
Asia 0.81 0.76
Latin America 0.83 0.75
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.73 0.72
West Asia/North Africa 0.78 0.74
Source: Rosegrant et al. (19).
is less scope and need for expansion in America and
Europe. At present some irrigated land in California
goes out of production as the water rights are sold to
cities for their domestic water supply. In both the United
States and Europe, some rainfed agricultural land is now
left idle as there is no need for more production. If the
need developed, agricultural productivity could probably
be enhanced on rainfed land at a lower cost than would
be involved in expanding irrigated land. Moreover, future
production increases in developed countries are expected
to come from higher yields per unit of land and per unit
of water.
It has been argued that water pricing might reduce
the demand for irrigation water. However, water used for
irrigation is not simply an economic resource but also a
social good. A change in the price of water would affect
the urban price of food, which in turn could have major
political consequences. It would be more appropriate to
charge for the water actually consumed than for what is
supplied in irrigation, but that is practically impossible.
Another practical difficulty with water pricing as an
instrument for affecting its use is that for the price to
have an effect on water demand, it must be significantly
increased, most likely more than politically feasible. A
case in point is China, where according to the World
Bank, water for agriculture is heavily subsidized. A better
option for improving water use efficiency in irrigation
appears to be rationing water where the demand exceeds
supply (20).
A contentious issue is how to improve water productiv-
ity (e.g., kg/m3 or $/m3 ) when water resources are scarce
and higher water rates are not appropriate. One option
is through deficit irrigation: applying less water than the
crop would need for maximum production per unit of land.
Another option is to design a responsive irrigation sys-
tem in which all farmers have access to water as and
when needed, which is expected to lead to less wastage.
The latter, however, is difficult and expensive to realize
in large-scale irrigation systems with many fragmented
small holdings. Providing farmers in deficit irrigation with
less water than they would freely demand is expected to
encourage farmers to grow more water-efficient and high-
value crops. The downside of deficit irrigation, though,
could be the possible salt buildup in the root zone in the
absence of sufficient leaching of salts from the soil pro-
file. Model studies have shown that on-demand irrigation
is profitable where water is relatively abundant or high-
value crops are grown that would benefit from extreme
reliability and accuracy in irrigation supplies. Yet, delib-
erately restricting irrigation deliveries at no less than 80%
of the potential full demand, crops can still produce well
WORLD’S MAJOR IRRIGATION AREAS 585
without salinization of the root zone. The productivity of
water (kg/m3 ) could then be almost 50% higher with deficit
irrigation than when water is supplied to meet full crop
demand (21).
The first challenge for the future, then, is to improve
crop production on irrigated land by managing water
better to achieve optimal production per unit of water,
which is more easily realized in developed countries
than in developing ones, but because of the population
growth, the latter have a greater need for more food
production. Present thinking is that more food export
from industrial countries is not the solution. Imports have
to be paid for in hard currency and staple crops should be
grown where the people live. However, this could change
as a result of globalization and reductions of tariffs in
agricultural trade. Hence, for now and the foreseeable
future, irrigated agriculture is essential for worldwide
food security. The second challenge thus becomes to
enhance irrigated agriculture while minimizing the
adverse environmental impacts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. FAO. (2002). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.
2. Jurriens, J. and Lenselink, K.J. (2001). Straightforward
furrow irrigation can be 70% efficient. Irrigation and
Drainage 50: 195–204.
3. Walker, W.R. and Skogerboe, G.V. (1987). Surface Irrigation:
Theory and Practice. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
4. Merry, R.E. (2003). ‘‘Dripping with success’’: The challenges of
an irrigation redevelopment project. Irrigation and Drainage
52: 71–83.
5. Yazar, A., Metin Sezen, S., and Gencel, B. (2002). Drip
irrigation of corn in the southeast Anatolia Project (GAP)
area in Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage 51: 293–300.
6. Jones, W.I. (1995). The World Bank and Irrigation. Oper-
ations Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
7. Hargreaves, G.H. (2003). Lessons from success and/or failure
of irrigation development. Irrigation and Drainage 52:
31–38.
8. Keller, A. and Keller, J. (1995). Effective Efficiency: A Water
Use Concept for Allocating Freshwater Resources. Water
Resources and Irrigation Division Discussion Paper 22.
Winrock International, Arlington, VA.
9. Lorite, I.J., Mateos, L., and Fereres, E. (2004). Evaluating
irrigation performance in a Mediterranean environment. II.
Variability among crops and farmers. Irrigation Science 23:
85–92.
10. Ibrahim, A.A., Stigter, C.J., Adam, H.S., and Adeeb, A.M.
(2002). Water-use efficiency of sorghum and groundnut under
traditional and current irrigation in the Gezira scheme,
Sudan. Irrigation Science 21: 115–125.
11. (2004). Irrigation and Drainage 53(2).
12. Frederiksen, H.D. (1996). Institutional principles for sound
management of water and related environmental resources.
In: Water Resources: Environmental Planning, Management
and Development. A.K. Biswas (Ed.). McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp. 529–577.
13. Vermillion, D. and Sagardoy, J.A. (1999). Transfer of Irriga-
tion Management Services: Guidelines. FAO Irrigation and
586 IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Drainage Paper 58. Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
14. Latif, M. and Pomee, M.S. (2003). Irrigation management
turnover: an option for improved utilization of limited
water resources in Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage 52:
261–272.
15. Oster, J.D. and Wichelns, D. (2003). Economic and agronomic
strategies to achieve sustainable irrigation. Irrigation Science
22: 107–120.
16. Barker, R., Dawe, D., and Inocencio, A. (2003). Economics of
water productivity in managing water for agriculture. In:
Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities
for Improvement. J.W. Kijne, R. Barker, and D. Molden
(Eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 19–35.
17. See endnote 1.
18. At field level, water withdrawn for irrigation includes, besides
that actually transpired by the growing crop, evaporation
from wet soil and water surfaces, leakage from channels,
seepage below the water table and drainage water from
the field.
19. Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X., and Cline, S.A. (2002). Global
Water Outlook to 2025. Averting an impending crisis. A 2020
Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initia-
tive Report. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC.
20. Perry, C. (2001). Water at any price? Issues and options in
charging for irrigation water. Irrigation and Drainage 50:
1–7.
21. Sarwar, A. and Perry, C. (2002). Increasing water productiv-
ity through deficit irrigation: evidence from the Indus Plains
of Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage 51: 87–92.
Canada
Mexico
0 250 500 km
Figure 1. Irrigated surfaces evolution, 1974–2000.
IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES
FREDERIC LASSERRE
Laval University
Quebec City, Canada
CONTRASTED TRENDS
The total amount of farmland, comprising both cropland
and pastureland, is slowly decreasing in the United States
at 71.2 million hectares (M ha) (176 million acres) in
1998, but irrigated lands kept increasing from 16.7 Mha
in 1974, 19.8 Mha in 1982, 19.9 Mha in 1992, and 25 Mha
in 2000. The geography of the increase in irrigated
lands is contrasted. The national yearly increase for the
period 1974–2000 is 1.57%, but east central and Atlantic
states witnessed much stronger growth, well above 4%,
on average, whereas Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Texas,
Oklahoma, and Wyoming saw their irrigated lands shrink
overall (Fig. 1) (1).
But this 26-year period masks a three-period evolution.
From 1974 to 1982, irrigated surfaces grew on average
by 2.18% yearly; sharp increases occurred in states such
as South Carolina (+29%/year), Georgia (+22.7%/year),
and Minnesota (+19.1%/year); other western states such
as Texas and New Mexico already displayed a downward
trend in their irrigated surfaces, and eastern States as
well such as New Jersey and West Virginia. From 1982
to 1992, the growth is much more moderate: 0.08% per
Average yearly change, %
−1 to 0 %
0 to 1.57 %
1.57 to 4 %
4 to 7 %
More than 7 %
United States Average : 1.57 % per year

Canada
Mexico
0 250 500 km
Figure 2. Irrigated surfaces evolution, 1992–2000.
year in the nation, with most states located in the western
part of the country witnessed a decrease. Then growth
picked up from 1992 to 2000 at a national yearly average
of 2.86%. Some western states (Fig. 2) (Oregon, Montana,
Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota) still experienced a
decline, but others grew appreciably (California: +3.7%/yr;
Texas: +3.5%). The strongest growth was experienced
in the Atlantic and east central regions, growth rates
exceeded 9% in Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky,
and several New England states (Tables 1 and 2).
This spectacular growth of irrigated surfaces in the
eastern United States can be explained by two factors:
a production objective, the desire of farmers to increase
yields or switching to more water-demanding crops, such
as corn, sugar, vegetables; a financial factor as well; many
farmers in this wetter part of the country irrigate their
cropland to avoid any risk of yield decrease. Tight markets,
strong pressures from banks, and rising debt have made
some farmers risk averse.
THE IRRIGATION COUNTRY: WATER IN THE DRY WEST
However strong the irrigation growth might have been in
the eastern part of the country and even though a slight
decline has begun to take place in a few western states,
absolute irrigated surfaces still show that irrigation is
concentrated mainly in the western and central United
States. In 1974 as well as in 1992 (Figs. 3 and 4), the
picture depicted by the maps underlines the dominant
share in irrigated surfaces in states west of the 100th
meridian: in 1974, irrigated land in California, Idaho,
IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES 587
Average yearly change, %
−4 to 0 %
0 to 2.86 %
2.86 to 6 %
6 to 9 %
More than 9 %
United States average: 2.18 % per year
Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas accounted for 58.3% of all
irrigated land. In 2000, irrigated land in the same five
states still made up 51% of irrigated land countrywide.
Of course, natural conditions largely explain this
spatial pattern: rainfall becomes much scarcer west of the
100th meridian and becomes more abundant again only
in the northwestern part in the country, on the Pacific
coast (Fig. 5). Most of the west gets less than 20 inches
of rain a year; patches of California, Nevada, Arizona,
Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and even Washington receive less
than 10 inches. Water is present, however, in the region:
aquifers do contain large amounts of water (for instance,
the Ogallala aquifer underneath Texas, Oklahoma, and
Nebraska). And mountain ranges generate rivers; the
Colorado drains a large basin in the area. Tapping this
resource became a political objective during the conquest of
the West during the second half of the nineteenth century
to tame nature and embody the conquest of the land, even
though it implied transferring agricultural techniques that
belonged to the wetter eastern part of the country. Water
schemes were designed to develop the resource, rivers
were dammed, and canals built to divert rivers, paid for
by the federal budget and delivering water that was and
still is largely subsidized. Agriculture is flourishing in the
arid west, but it is only thanks to the development of
what Donald Worster (3) calls a ‘‘hydraulic society,’’ where
water is the main resource and cements the very fabric of
the economy and society. This explains why, today, it is
still a very political and emotional issue fiercely debated,
although the age of large-scale dams and developments
seems to be gone.
588 IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Table 1. Top 15 States with Increases in Irrigated Table 2. Fifteen States Experiencing the Lowest Increase
Surfaces, 1974–2000 and 1992–2000 in Irrigated Surfaces, 1974–2000 and 1992–2000
1974–2000 %/year 1974–2000 %/year

South Carolina 11.78 New Jersey 1.39

Georgia 10.60 Oregon 1.27
Vermont 9.19 Louisiana 1.13
Missouri 8.74 Florida 1.08
Mississippi 8.72 Idaho 1.05
Indiana 8.05 California 1.02
Minnesota 7.98 Washington 0.70
Illinois 7.64 Colorado 0.65
Tennessee 7.23 New Mexico 0.54
Kentucky 7.20 Oklahoma −0.06
Maine 6.99 Texas −0.06
Alabama 6.41 Montana −0.09
Arkansas 6.18 Arizona −0.64
Michigan 5.76 Nevada −0.70
Delaware 5.59 Wyoming −0.88
North Carolina 5.29
1992–2000 %/year
1992–2000 %/year
Illinois 1.33
Connecticut 17.20 Wisconsin 0.89
Maine 17.07 Colorado 0.88
New Hampshire 17.07 Maryland 0.77
South Carolina 11.91 Louisiana 0.57
Vermont 11.45 Indiana 0.46
Kentucky 11.44 Arizona 0.26
Georgia 9.87 West Virginia 0.00
Ohio 9.51 Oklahoma −0.12
Missouri 8.18 Washington −0.55
North Carolina 7.13 South Dakota −0.58
New York 7.09 Montana −1.73
Arkansas 6.61 Alabama −1.96
Rhode Island 6.59 Wyoming −2.88
Tennessee 6.34 Iowa −3.85
Mississippi 6.12
New Jersey 5.98
more than 40% of irrigation withdrawals; levels are as
high as 49.7% for Montana and 49.1% for Kentucky. On
WATER WITHDRAWALS the other hand, 17 states pump less than 30% of their
irrigation water from aquifers. Reliance on groundwater
The geography of water withdrawals for irrigation (Fig. 6) is not connected to the size of the withdrawals; states along
confirms the dominant role of irrigation in agriculture in the lower Mississippi and Missouri basins and around the
the West: large withdrawals take place in this part of the Great Lakes tend to pump a larger proportion of their
country in every state but a few of them and reaches levels irrigation water from surface water.
as high as 70.1 billion m3 /year in California (see Table 3). As a result of the huge withdrawals taking place in
But the geography of water withdrawals also shows the West for irrigation, shares of irrigation water in total
that eastern states withdraw appreciable volumes of freshwater withdrawals (Fig. 7) are nearly always above
water for irrigation: Florida, of course (9.1 billion 60%, except for Kansas (56.3%), Oklahoma (40.7%), Texas
m3 /year), largely because of the fruit and sugar indus- (34.8%), and North Dakota (12.7%) (Table 4).
tries; but also Georgia (2.2 Bm3 /year); North and South In the eastern United States, the share of irrigation
Carolina (cotton, peanuts, corn, tobacco); New Jer- is consistently below 15%, except for Arkansas, Florida,
sey; Massachusetts (0.33 Bm3 /year); and Michigan. In Mississippi, Georgia (17.8%) and Missouri (17.4%), and
the three latter states, large water withdrawals are is less than 1% in 12 states (Indiana, Vermont,
largely accounted for by the redevelopment of fruit and Kentucky, Iowa, Virginia, New York, Alabama, Ohio,
vegetable cultures for nearby urban markets. Central Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and the District
States in the Missouri/Mississippi basin also use sig- of Columbia). Thus, although it is developing fast in
nificant water for irrigation: Nebraska (14.4 Bm3 /year), the eastern part of the country and may at times in
Arkansas (13.3 Bm3 /year), Kansas (5.7 Bm3 /year), Missis- specific places, represent a problem for water supply in the
sippi (2.1 Bm3 /year), Missouri (2.1 Bm3 /year), Louisiana summertime, irrigation remains by far the major demand
(1.8 Bm3 /year), and Oklahoma (1.2 Bm3 /year). sector only in the West. This explains the pressure exerted
Some states rely heavily on groundwater for irrigation. on ground or surface waterbodies by environmental
In the lower 48 states, 19 states rely on groundwater for problems such as the overexploitation (Colorado River)
 Canada

Mexico
Irrigated surfaces, in ha
3 200 000

45 000
0 250 500 km
60 000

Figure 3. Irrigated surface per state, 1974.

Canada

Irrigated surfaces, in ha
Mexico 4 100 000

570 000
0 250 500 km
90 000

Figure 4. Irrigated surface per state, 2000.

589
 Canada

Average annual
precipitation (po. = 2.34 cm)
Mexico 0 –10 po.
10 – 20 po.
20 – 30 po.
30 – 40 po.
40 +
0 250 500 km

Figure 5. The dry western United States (1,2).

Canada

Water withdrawals for

irrigation, 2000 (million
3
cubic meters (m ) per year)
70 200
Mexico 43 000
Water origin :
14 400
5 100 Ground
40+ 1 200 Surface
0 250 500 km 200

Figure 6. Water withdrawals for irrigation, 2000.

590
 IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES 591

Canada

Share of irrigation in total

fresh water withdrawals
Mexico 0–15 %
15–30 %
30–45 %
45–60 %
0 250 500 km 60–75 %
>75 %

Figure 7. Share of irrigation in total fresh water withdrawals, 2000.

or the salinization of rivers (such as the Gila River). It Table 4. States Whose Share of Irrigation in Total Fresh
also entails a developing political debate as to whether the Water Withdrawals is Greater Than 50%, 2000
sharing of the resource should leave so much subsidized State %
water to the agriculture sector, as thirsty cities and
industries have begun buying up expensive water rights Montana 95.93
from farmers to satisfy their fast growing needs. Wyoming 91.15
Colorado 90.63
Oregon 87.76
FARMING AND IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES New Mexico 87.73
Idaho 87.28
The agricultural sector displays a contrasting picture, Utah 81.07
as can be seen in Fig. 8. If absolute water withdrawals Arizona 80.51
for irrigation are very large in the West and if California 79.43
Nevada 74.98
agriculture there remains by far the largest demand
Arkansas 72.66
sector, the share of irrigated land in total farmland is
Nebraska 72.05
not necessarily dominant (Table 5). South Dakota 70.64
California, Arkansas, and Mississippi are the only Washington 57.63
states whose share of irrigated land represents more than Kansas 56.25
half of the total exploited land. The extent of fruit and Florida 52.70
vegetables crops in California, as well as cotton growing Mississippi 50.14

Table 3. Top Twenty States for Irrigation Water

Withdrawals, 2000 (in Billion Cubic Meters per Year) in the Mississippi valley, accounts for such high shares.
California Idaho Colorado Montana Oregon Strong fruit and vegetable cropping (Washington, New
70.1 43 29.4 22.5 16.1 Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Delaware), sugar (Florida),
Texas Nebraska Arkansas Wyoming Arizona potato (Idaho), tobacco and peanuts (Georgia) are, in their
15.3 14.4 13.3 12.2 11.5 respective states, dominant cultures where irrigation is
Utah Florida Washington New Mexico Kansas extensively practiced, to enable cropping (as for most
10.3 9.1 7.6 6.4 5.7
cultures in the West) or to reduce, even eliminate, the
Nevada Georgia Mississippi Missouri Louisiana
financial risk that could stem from poor rains in an
5.2 2.2 2.14 2.1 1.8
otherwise pluvial agriculture.
592 IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Canada

Share of irrigated lands

in total farmland, %
Mexico 0 –13 %
13 – 20 %
20 – 28 %
28 – 40 %
0 250 500 km 40 – 50 %
> 50 %

Figure 8. Share of irrigated land in farmland, 1998.

Table 5. States Whose Share of Irrigated Land in loss in their crops because of poor rains (Table 6). This is a
Farmland (1998) is Greater Than 30% consequence of the increasing role of financial institutions
State % in agribusiness, as banks have stepped up their pressure
on farmers who, in turn, tend to be willing to spend more
Maryland 31.07 on water to avoid potential losses from natural factors.
Illinois 31.32 The cost factor is certainly better reflected in the
Nebraska 31.37
irrigation technique employed. Irrigation in the East
Georgia 31.89
Delaware 32.22
is dominated by the sprinkler technique, an easy-to-
Minnesota 37.18 implement technology with a higher water productivity
Texas 38.16 than gravity or surface watering. Drip irrigation is also
Louisiana 39.10
Wisconsin 39.26
Michigan 39.78
Table 6. Top Fifteen States for Water Application Rate in
New Jersey 41.78
Thousand m3 /ha, 2000
Florida 41.78
Missouri 43.02 State Rate, 000 m3 /ha
Idaho 43.33
Washington 45.72 Montana 24.1
Mississippi 52.36 Arizona 21.7
Arkansas 65.17 Idaho 21.2
California 65.90 Massachusetts 20.97
Wyoming 19.4
Colorado 15.96
Nevada 14.87
These risk-averse farming sectors partly explain why Oregon 13.87
the water application rate per surface unit can be so high Utah 13.54
in the more humid East (Fig. 9). The low cost of water California 12.8
is certainly a factor, but it rather accounts for profligate New Mexico 11.8
rates in the West, as water remains heavily subsidized in Washington 8.9
this part of the country, whereas farmers in the East, who Florida 8.2
North Carolina 6.8
produce high-value crops such as fruits and vegetables,
South Carolina 6
reason that the extra water spread in their fields is worth
Arkansas 5.4
the guarantee that they will not suffer from a few percent
 IRRIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES 593

Canada

Water application rate,

3
m /ha, 2000 (million
3
cubic meters (m ) per year)
Mexico
32 300
15 700 Water origin :
7 000 Sprinkler
4 200
1 900 Drip
0 250 500 km Surface

Figure 9. Water application rate, m3 /ha, 2000.

used in Florida (34.1% of volume of water spread), surface irrigation definitely implies improvement poten-
Pennsylvania (20%), Virginia (17.9%), New Jersey (12.3%), tial but points to a major political problem, the very
New York (10.8%), and Massachusetts (8.3%). But west of low cost farmers still pay for water carried by expen-
the Mississippi or in its lower course, surface irrigation is sive water-development projects paid for by all taxpayers
either dominant or holds a significant share of total water in the United States. Fees collected by irrigation dis-
used in fields (see Table 7). tricts often do not even pay for the direct costs of moving
Whereas it is well-documented that its water produc- the water from the dams to the fields, let alone refund
tivity is low (<40%), in water-scarce areas, the extent of the investment.
The low share of sprinkler and drip irrigation in water-
scarce areas creates a large productivity improvement
Table 7. States Where the Share of Surface Irrigation is
Greater Than 30%, 2000
potential. Converting a fraction of surface-irrigated fields
into sprinkler-irrigated fields could vastly reduce the
Share, % of Total Water water application rate. There is a significant relation
State Used for Irrigation in the West between a large share of surface irrigation
Louisiana 88.30 and high application rates. Turning to a more sprinkler-
Arkansas 86.03 intensive agriculture could reduce water withdrawals
Wyoming 83.10 and consumption and help relieve the region from the
Arizona 79.82 ongoing, bitter, water-sharing debate. But this cannot
Montana 70.93 be done by mere campaigns in favor of more effective
Nevada 70.48 watering techniques; farmers are well-aware of them. The
Mississippi 68.03
issue again boils down to the pricing of water, which is
Colorado 65.29
Utah 62.41 definitely a question that most politicians would not want
Missouri 59.55 to tackle directly.
California 54.16 Broadening the topic, these observations underline the
New Mexico 53.11 structure of water use that agriculture has developed in
Nebraska 47.44 the United States as of 2000. In the East, a burgeoning
Oregon 46.08 and fast-growing irrigation sector relies on water-saving
Florida 40.73 techniques but can use water generously. This water
Texas 36.83
use does not stem from climate constraints, but from
Idaho 34.67
financial reasoning, avoiding risk and increasing surface
West Virginia 33.33
productivity. In the West, water use in irrigation was
594 IRRIGATION WELLS
the only way to develop intensive agriculture, with crops
imported from Europe or the more humid East. But,
because of the history of agricultural development, water
prices still prevent the adoption of more efficient irrigation
techniques. In the context of a slow erosion of irrigation
in the West due to rising competition for water from cities
and the industry and also due to unsustainable water
withdrawal rates in several river basins and/or aquifers,
it is important to take into account the improvement
potential that agriculture displays in its water use.
Massive water diversions are probably not necessary
because agriculture, by far the main water user in the
West, can reduce its consumption by turning to more
efficient irrigation systems. But this comes at a cost.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible thanks to a grant from the
FQRSC.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Riebsame, W. and Robb, J. (Eds.). All maps are designed with
data from USGS and the Agricultural Census, except Fig. 5,
adapted from (1997) Atlas of the New West. University of
Colorado at Boulder Press, WW Norton.
2. Lasserre, F. and Descroix, L. (2003). Eaux et Territoires. PUQ,
Québec.
3. Worster, D. (1985). Rivers of Empire. Water, Aridity, and the
Growth of the American West. Oxford University Press, New
York.
IRRIGATION WELLS
MUHAMMAD NADEEM ASGHAR
International Water
Management Institute (IWMI)
Lahore, Pakistan
In arid and semiarid areas, rainfall is markedly variable
in magnitude, time of occurrence, and spatial distribution.
Irrigation is required to meet the demand of agriculture,
but surface water supplies are also characterized as
scarce and unreliable. Consequently, farmers consider it
necessary to create a dependable water supply, which
is adequate and in a desired location. This management
option has spurred farmers to develop the technology of
irrigation wells.
History started with the development of irrigation
wells to be used for lifting water from rivers (surface
water), surface storage (rainfall), and subsurface dug
holes (underground water). The discharge rates of
such irrigation wells depend on the capacity of the
lifting devices.
As pumps were introduced, a boom in another kind of
irrigation well occurred to exploit underground water for
irrigated agriculture. Promising technologies of irrigation
wells include tube wells, skimming wells, dug wells, and
radial wells. The discharge rates of these irrigation wells
depend on the capacity of the lifting devices and also on
the hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer.
A tube well has a single strainer that penetrates
vertically into the aquifer and operates under suction
to extract groundwater at a discharge rate usually greater
than 28 L/s. In unconfined aquifers that have fresh
groundwater lenses underlain by saline groundwater
layers, these wells are prone to extract groundwater of
deteriorated quality due to upward movement of saline
groundwater that enters the well screen. The thickness of
these fresh groundwater lenses varies from a few meters to
more than 30 meters, depending on the recharge source. In
the surroundings of canals and rivers, this thickness can be
more than 30 meters. The diameter of tube-well strainers
is usually greater than 10 cm. The greater the thickness
of the fresh groundwater lens, the higher the possibility
of extracting greater discharge, which requires a larger
diameter pipe for the strainer. This type of irrigation well,
however, can extract groundwater without the problem of
deteriorated quality provided that the well penetrates at
less than 60% of the depth of the fresh groundwater lens
and its operating time does not exceed 6 hours in any
day (1).
For unconfined aquifers where the thickness of the
fresh groundwater lens is less than 25 meters, skimming
wells are introduced. This type of irrigation well is
multistrainer, spread at some horizontal distance from the
suction point, and these strainers are joined to a common
pump. Like tube wells, the strainers in skimming wells
penetrate vertically into the aquifer. However, designing
a skimming well to include four to six strainers of 5 cm
diameter that spread at a 1.5-m horizontal distance
from the suction point makes the design cost-effective
and minimizes operation and maintenance requirements.
These strainers should be installed at less than 60% of
the depth of the fresh groundwater lens of the aquifer. To
reduce the risk of quality decline, its operating time should
also not exceed 6 hours in any day. This type of irrigation
well also works under suction and can usually extract
groundwater at discharge rates less than 28 L/s (2).
Dug wells can be used to extract fresh groundwater
from aquifers when thickness of fresh groundwater lenses
is less than fifteen meters. Depending on the well diameter,
there are two kinds of dug wells found in various parts of
the world; small dug wells and large dug wells. In both
dug wells, groundwater gathers under gravity, and pumps
are used to extract this groundwater. Dug wells are mostly
suitable for smallholder irrigated agriculture.
A large dug well has a diameter large enough for
workers to enter it for construction and maintenance.
This type of irrigation well can be dug as deep as 90% of
the depth of the fresh groundwater lens of the aquifer and
can still avoid the risk of entering the underlying saline
groundwater at the bottom of the dug well (3).
A small dug well, on the other hand, has a diameter
too small to enter and is constructed from the ground
surface using special tools. The treadle pump, which is
a human-powered pump, also uses this type of irrigation
well as a source of groundwater. For small-scale irrigation,
these pumps were first introduced into Bangladesh in the
early 1980s, and they are now making their mark in
Africa (4).

Radial wells are also multistrainer wells. Unlike tube
wells and skimming wells that have vertically installed
strainers, radial wells have horizontal strainers. These
strainers facilitate skimming a very thin (even less than
3 meters) fresh groundwater lens as they provide large
discharges per unit of drawdown—a desirable feature to
avoid upward movement of saline groundwater (5). These
strainers (usually of 5 cm diameter) can be joined directly
to the sump—a collection dug hole, or they are first
connected to collector pipes (usually of 10 cm diameter),
and then these pipes are joined to the sump. Groundwater
comes under gravity to these horizontal strainers, and
pumps are used to extract it from the sump. This type
of irrigation well, which is an innovative and modern
type of dug well, can also be used to support smallholder
irrigated agriculture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Asghar, M.N., Prathapar, S.A., and Shafique, M.S. (2002).
Extracting relatively fresh groundwater from aquifers under-
lain by salty groundwater. Agric. Water Manage. 52: 119–137.
2. Asghar, M.N., Saeed, M.M., Ashraf, M., and Qureshi, A.S.
(2002). Potential of skimming wells for extracting relatively
fresh groundwater from unconfined aquifers underlain by
saline groundwater. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. New Trends Water
Environ. Eng. Safety Life: Eco-compatible Solutions for Aquatic
Environ. June 24–28, Capri, Italy.
3. Asghar, M.N., Shafique, M.S., Ahmad, S., and Kahlown, M.A.
(2002). Root Zone Salinity Management Using Fractional
Skimming Wells with Pressurized Irrigation: Annual Progress
Report 1999–2000. Working Paper No. 51, International Water
Management Institute, Lahore, Pakistan.
4. Kay, M., and Brabben, T. (2000). Treadle Pumps for Irrigation
in Africa. IPTRID. International Programme for Technology
and Research in Irrigation and Drainage. Knowledge Synthesis
Report No. 1.
5. Kelleners, T.J. (2001). Effluent Salinity of Pipe Drains and
Tube Wells: A case study from the Indus plain. Ph.D. Thesis,
Wageningen University, Alterra ILRI, Wageningen.
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING
ANDY SEIDL
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
JULIA FREEDGOOD
American Farmland Trust
Washington, District of
Columbia
FEN C. HUNT
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, District of
Columbia
INTRODUCTION
Many owners of agricultural lands, particularly those
at the urban fringe, face strong pressures to convert
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING 595
their lands to residential or commercial uses. If these
forces of change occurred in an environment of perfectly
functioning markets, then there would be no economic
problem or failure and no economic justification for public
policy in the form of planning. We would simply observe
the optimal rate of land conversion to reflect societal
preferences and changes in income and population over
time. However, the forces contributing to agricultural land
conversion are rife with informational and policy- driven
distortions in both agricultural and nonagricultural land
markets, among them, zoning and other local policies that
encourage development and inflate land values beyond the
reach of agriculture, high-risk and low-economic returns to
commodity production, higher incomes and the provision
of health insurance in off-farm occupations, unintended
consequences of state and federal farm and nonfarm
policies, and improvements in telecommunications and
in other infrastructure that mute the cost advantages
of urban living. Moreover, agricultural lands provide
many types of value to landowners, private citizens,
communities, and society at large that are not reflected
in the market value of agricultural products or in the
capitalized value of those products in establishing land
lease and sale prices. As a result of both supply- and
demand-side dynamics, the market for agricultural land
usually fails to reflect social values. Therefore, public
policy in the form of some sort of land-use planning
is justified.
The American public values agricultural land for many
reasons (1,2), beyond its ability to produce food, fiber,
and timber. These include curbing negative impacts of
ill-managed growth; providing flood control; improving
water quality; maintaining groundwater rechargeability;
mitigating air pollution, ozone, and greenhouse gas
emissions; providing community buffers or greenways;
reducing traffic congestion; and easing the fiscal burden
of public services. Such values can be reflected within
a community by the relative intensity of alternative
development; the opportunity for public goods and
services, such as parks and trails; wildlife habitats, scenic
views, and recreational opportunities; and proximity to
urban dwellers (see, for a variety of sources, Ref. 3).
Public values for agricultural land preservation have
translated into public support for establishing agricultural
land preservation programs at the local, state, and federal
levels. A mixture of both regulatory (4,5) and incentive-
based approaches (4,6) have resulted in the permanent
protection of nearly 1.5 million acres of agricultural
land from conversion to nonagricultural uses (7) and the
concentration of millions of more acres in agricultural
production through zoning. Agricultural land protection
through the various tools of land-use planning is a complex
issue and process. This article provides only a glimpse
of fundamental approaches and resources available for
agricultural land-use planning and preservation.
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES
What land should be preserved and for what purposes?
What level of private and public resources should be
made available for fee simple land or development rights
596 AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING
purchases? How should priorities be set to protect critical
and sensitive areas with limited private and public funds
to achieve the best results? Both private and public
institutions must address these questions and concerns.
Agricultural land-use planning and preservation con-
stitutes sensible resource management for sustainable
agriculture and more broadly for sustainable development.
It also stands on its own as a local, state, or national policy
goal to mitigate land fragmentation and haphazard devel-
opment. Various tools, resources, and model programs
are available to facilitate agricultural land-use planning
and preservation. Each person and community has unique
goals, challenges, and collective knowledge that will deter-
mine the appropriate mixture of tools to guide its private
and public actions in crafting effective local land-use man-
agement and policy (8).
Flexibility and knowledge in local conditions are the
most pervasive features of successful programs to preserve
lands for multiple functions meeting agricultural opera-
tions, managing land use, and achieving environmental,
social, and economic vitality objectives (4). Scientists and
educators at the land-grant universities provide research-
based information, analyses, and educational programs
that will help facilitate this process at the local and
state levels.
Public programs for agricultural land-use planning and
preservation may benefit both landowners and the general
public. Agricultural land-use planning and preservation
programs may be motivated to preserve production
agriculture for national food security or for local food
choice reasons. In this case, the following are many of the
key characteristics typically considered to prioritize land
parcels chosen for preservation:
1. Soil quality and productivity
2. Agricultural infrastructure
3. Farming methods, including conservation practices
4. Unique or critical land quality
5. Imminent threat of conversion
6. Critical size of a parcel for a viable agricul-
tural operation
7. Proximity to other protected land for a critical mass
to achieve effectiveness
8. Importance to local agricultural and economic
vitality (9,2).
Alternatively, the public may be more concerned with
issues related to urban growth pressure or preservation
of ecological integrity and cultural resources (10). They
may perceive preserving agricultural land as a way
to sustain community values, lifestyle, or its natural
and cultural heritage. In this case, land preservation
programs may rank land parcels by the ability to
provide direct environmental or economic benefits of
open space and scenic beauty, economic opportunity, such
as agro-tourism, wildlife habitats, community buffers or
greenways, source water or watershed protection, clean air
or carbon sequestration, historical or cultural significance,
recreational opportunities, such as hunting, curbing
current and anticipated development pressure, and/or
complementary community practices, such as agricultural
zoning and growth management (1,11).
NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGRICULTURAL LAND
PLANNING AND PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Public interest in agricultural land protection, especially
against fragmentation and haphazard development, has
increased steadily since the 1950s. As this interest has
grown, the preservation toolbox has expanded from local
and state to the federal level. USDA programs designed
to preserve working agricultural landscapes include the
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP),
the Forest Legacy Program (FLP), and the Grassland
Reserve Program.
The FRPP (www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/FRPP) lever-
ages federal funds with state and local funds to purchase
conservation easements on prime and locally important
or unique land by limiting conversion to nonagricultural
uses. The FLP (www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flp.
shtml) establishes partnerships between the Forest Ser-
vice (USFS) and state forestry agencies to protect environ-
mentally important private forestlands from conversion to
nonforest uses. Through conservation easements or rental
agreements, the GRP (www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP)
protects and restores grasslands from conversion to crop-
land and other nonagricultural uses and enables viable
ranching operations to restore plant and animal biodiver-
sity.
Many state and local ranking systems are based on vari-
ations of the federal Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) system (www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/lesa/
index.html). LESA encompasses a portfolio of land
attributes to estimate the relative value of agricultural
land. LESA provides a framework to measure the mer-
its of keeping individual parcels in agricultural operation
based on local preservation objectives. LESA recently has
been tied to GIS technology to facilitate mapping and
planning scenarios.
State and Local Programs
Over the past 50 years, public organizations at the
state and local levels have used a variety of tools to
preserve agricultural land. Examples of these tools include
differential tax assessment programs, agricultural district
programs, right-to-farm or nuisance protection laws,
transfer of development rights (TDR) programs, purchase
of agricultural conservation easements—also known as
development rights (PACE or PDR) programs—growth
management or urban boundaries and agricultural zoning,
among a variety of other tools. Private organizations such
as land trusts also have gotten involved, typically by
accepting donated conservation easements or facilitating
the process for landowners to sell easements to a
public program.
Beginning in 1956 with the inception of Maryland’s
differential property tax assessment program, today every
state except Michigan has a differential property tax
assessment program that assesses agricultural land based

on its use value, instead of its fair market value. The
program either reduces property taxes on agricultural
lands or defers taxes for as long as the land remains in
agriculture. Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York also have
programs to allow farmers to claim income tax credits to
offset their local property tax bills.
California enacted the first agricultural districts law
in 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act.
Landowners are allowed to create ‘‘agricultural preserves’’
areas. New York was the first state to create a
comprehensive agricultural district program to protect
farmland and support the farming business. Agricultural
district programs are authorized in 16 states (7) to create
legally recognized geographic entities where agricultural
activities and their land bases are encouraged and
protected. In addition, all 50 states have nuisance
protection statutes (also known as ‘‘right-to-farm’’ laws)
for agricultural operations.
In 1967, Boulder County in Colorado (www.co.boulder.
co.us/lu) established a TDR program to protect agricultural
lands and open space. This program enables landowners
to transfer the development rights on one parcel of land
to another parcel of land, such as from an agricultural
zone to designated higher density development areas.
Besides maintaining working agricultural landscapes,
TDR programs may be designed for multiple purposes,
such as to conserve environmentally sensitive areas or
preserve historic landmarks. As of 2000, Montgomery
County in Maryland had more than 40,000 acres, which
accounted for 60% of the national total, enrolled in the
TDR program (7).
In 1974, Suffolk County in New York enacted the
first PACE (also known as purchase of development
rights, PDR) program. King County in Washington and
the states of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Connecticut
quickly followed suit. PACE programs are voluntary on the
landowner’s part and permanently protect agricultural
land by removing the development rights. As of 2004,
PACE programs operate in 23 states, including 19
statewide and more than 45 local programs (7). Five
additional statewide programs have been authorized to
acquire easements but have not purchased any to date. In
particular, local PACE programs are expanding probably
because of incentives from the federal FRPP, which
provides matching funds to support local, state, and
private easement acquisitions, as well as from landowner
and community interest in saving land for agriculture.
From 2000 to 2004, the number of local PACE programs
increased 32% (7).
Programs at the local and state levels take a variety
of forms. Communities need to use a combination of
tools and techniques as part of a comprehensive effort
to plan for appropriate land use and protect agricultural
land. Examples of other common tools that communities
use include comprehensive planning; agricultural zoning;
limitations on infrastructure, regional tax sharing;
urban growth boundaries and growth management;
and agricultural viability and economic development
programs. Information on conservation easements, private
conservation and donation, and local land trusts can be
found at the Land Trust Alliance (LTA) (www.lta.org).
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING 597
Information on farmland protection and stewardship can
be found on the Farmland Information Center (FIC)
(www.farmlandinfo.org), which has a series of fact sheets
on farmland protection tools and an extensive collection
of local and state land-use and land preservation laws,
statistics, and literature.
Examples of statewide PACE programs include Cal-
ifornia (www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/index.htm), Maryland
(www.malpf.info), Michigan (www.michigan.gov/mda/
0,1607,7-125-1567 1599—, 00.html), Pennsylvania (www.
agriculture.state.pa.us/farmland/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=
122454&agricultureNav= |4451|), and Vermont (www.
vhcb.org/conservation.html). Prominent local PACE pro-
grams can be found in Boulder County, Colorado
(www.co.boulder.co.us/openspace); Montgomery County,
Maryland (www.mc-mncppc.org/legacy open space/index.
shtm); and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (http://www.
co.lancaster.pa.us/planning/site/default.asp).
Land-Grant Colleges and Universities (LGUs)
Many programs related to agricultural land preservation
may be found in the Land-Grant University System,
including general national level programs in applied
research and outreach education, specific endowed chairs
in land-use and planning, and regional or state level
programs addressing land-use policy and planning.
Each U.S. state and territory has at least one land-grant
university (LGU) (www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/
state partners.html), including state agricultural exper-
iment station(s) and a state cooperative extension
service. Both the agricultural experiment stations
and the nationwide Cooperative Extension Service
(www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html) have a long
history of engagement in research, teaching, education,
extension, and outreach on issues surrounding land use
and policy. Information on land-use management and pol-
icy (www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/nre/in focus/ere if nercrd.
html) can be found on the CSREES website. Researchers
at the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS)
(www.ers.usda.gov/Topics/view.asp?T=103610) also con-
duct economic research on land-use policy issues.
The increasing importance and complexity of land-
use issues have led to the establishment of two
endowed chairs at LGUs: (1) the C. William Swank
Rural-Urban Policy Chair at the Ohio State University
(aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank); and (2) the John Hannah
Distinguished Professor in Land Policy at Michigan
State University (www.landpolicy.msu.edu). Both land-
use endowed chairs provide substantial leadership at the
state and national levels to address these complex issues
through research, education, extension, and outreach (12).
Examples of land-use programs at LGUs include
the University of California at Davis (aic.ucdavis.edu/
research1/land.html), Colorado State University (dare.
agsci.colostate.edu/csuagecon/extension/pubstools.htm#
LandUse) (13), Michigan State University (ntweb11a.ais.
msu.edu/luaoe/index.asp), the Ohio State University (lan-
duse.osu.edu/), Pennsylvania State University (www.
cas.nercrd.psu.edu/Land use.htm), Purdue University
598 AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING
(www.ces.purdue.edu/anr/landuse/), University of Wiscon-
sin (www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter), and University of
Wyoming (www.uwyo.edu/openspace).
Nongovernmental Organizations
For landowners, one of the most common ways to perma-
nently preserve their agricultural land is to donate a con-
servation easement to a qualified conservation organiza-
tion or public entity. If donating the entire easement value
is not feasible, landowners can make a partial donation.
According to the LTA (www.lta.org/aboutlt/census.shtml),
more than 1260 local and regional land trusts were
operating in the United States in 2000 and had col-
lectively preserved more than 6.2 million acres of
land and other natural and cultural resources. Infor-
mation about local and state growth management,
land-use planning, and agricultural land preservation
in general can be found at the American Farmland
Trust (AFT) (www.farmland.org), the American Plan-
ning Association (www.planning.org), the Smart Growth
Network (www.smartgrowth.org), the Sprawl Resource
Guide (www.plannersweb.com/sprawl.html), and the Lin-
coln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu/index-
high.asp).
Increasingly, in partnership with local, state, or federal
programs, many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
especially land trusts, work to preserve agricultural lands
and open space. Until recently, except in California, most
NGOs accepted donated conservation easements. As the
2002 Farm Bill made qualified NGOs eligible to receive
federal funds, land trusts have since increased in purchas-
ing agricultural conservation easements. Most land trust
activities take place at the local and state levels, such
as the Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts (www.cclt.org/)
and Sonoran Institute (www.sonoran.org/index.html).
However, prominent national organizations working on
land preservation include the AFT (www.farmland.org/),
the LTA (www.lta.org/), and the Trust for Public
Land (www.tpl.org).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Agricultural land policy and protection is a pressing
issue of public concern. The failure of land markets
to reflect the social value of extensive land uses
relative to intensive uses and the irreversibility of land-
use intensification decisions create a particularly fluid
and pressing policy environment for lay people, land-
use practitioners, and researchers alike. Federal, state,
and local governmental agencies and nongovernmental
organizations of various scales are engaged in land-use
planning as are researchers and outreach educators at
many Land Grant Universities throughout the United
States. In this article, we have provided a brief overview
of the issues and resources and ongoing programs directly
influencing agricultural land protection and land-use
policy. We have taken pains to point to many of the
resources currently available on the Internet, recognizing
that this is an area of inquiry characterized by rapid
change and development. As such, traditional print
resources, although valuable, cannot be expected to keep
pace with the inchoate informational environment found
within the agricultural land-use planning and protection
arena. Interested readers are encouraged to consult the
prominent individual practitioners, program managers,
and researchers in the field to benefit from the most
up-to-date information available.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Hellerstein, D., Nickerson, C., Cooper, J., Feather, P.,
Gadsby, D., Mullarkey, D., Tegene, A., and Barnard, C.
(2002). Farmland Protection: The Role of Public Preferences
for Rural Amenities. USDA Economic Research Service.
Agricultural Economic Report #815.
2. Abdalla, C. (2004). What the public values about farm and
ranch land: Workshop summary. Northeast Regional Center
for Rural Development, University Park, PA. Available:
www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu/Land use.htm.
3. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (NER-
CRD). (2004). Available: www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu/Land use.
htm, Accessed September 4, 2004.
4. Freedgood, J. (1997). Saving America’s Farmland: What
Works. The American Farmland Trust, Northampton,
MA.
5. Libby, L.W. and Abdalla, C. (2002). Protecting farmland
at the fringe: Do regulations work? Swank Program in
Rural-Urban Policy, Department of Agricultural, Environ-
mental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State Uni-
versity, Columbus, OH. Available: aede.osu.edu/programs/
Swank.
6. De Cuir, N., Sokolow, A.D., and Woled, J. (Eds.). (2003).
Compensating Landowners for Conserving Agricultural
Land. Agricultural Issues Center, University of California,
Davis, CA. Available: www.aic.ucdavis.edu.
7. Farmland Information Center (FIC). (2004). American
Farmland Trust. Available: www.farmlandinfo.org, Accessed
September 4, 2004.
8. McLeod, D., Coupal, R., Seidl, A., Inman, K., and Taylor, D.
(2003). Opportunities and challenges for land use research
and outreach in the Intermountain West. J. Extension 41(5).
Available: www.joe.org/joe/2003october/a5.shtml.
9. Farm Foundation. (2004). Issue Report: Farmland preserva-
tion. Farm Foundation Issue Report Issue 1, April 2004. Oak-
brook, IL. Available: www.farmfoundation.org/documents/
FINALIssueReport4-15-04.pdf.
10. Seidl, A. (2001). Colorado professionals’ concerns, abilities,
and needs for land use planning. J. Extension. 39(4).
Available: www.joe.org/joe/2001august/rb5.html.
11. Loomis, J.B., Rameker, V., and Seidl, A. (2004). A hedonic
model of public market transactions for open space protection.
J. Environ. Planning Manage. 47(1): 83–96.
12. (1999). The Performance of State Programs for Farmland
Protection: Conference Proceedings. Swank Program in Rural-
Urban Policy, Department of Agricultural, Environmental,
and Development Economics, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
13. Seidl, A. (2004). Failing markets and fragile institutions in
land use: Colorado’s experience. In: Land Use Problems and
Conflicts: Causes, Consequences and Solutions. S.J. Goetz,
J.S. Shortle, and J.C. Bergstrom (Eds.). Routledge Publish-
ers. In press.

WATERLOGGING
SURESH K. GUPTA
CSSRI
Karnal, Haryana, India
According to Clayton, land is waterlogged if the water table
is within ± 150 cm of the natural surface. A modification
to account for the yield of the crop was made and decided
to term a land waterlogged if the yield is reduced to 25%
of the optimum value due to a rise in the subsoil water.
A committee constituted by the Central Water and Power
Commission (India) defined waterlogging on the basis of a
definition proposed by Kuntze. According to this definition,
an area is said to be waterlogged when water stagnates on
the land surface or the water table rises to an extent such
that soil pores in the root zone of crop become saturated,
resulting in restrictions in the normal circulation of air,
a decline in the level of oxygen, and an increase in the
level of carbon dioxide. Due to its simplicity, the definition
proposed by Clayton has been adopted in many countries,
and apparently it accounts for both surface and subsurface
waterlogging. Thus, the word waterlogging is used to
designate stress due to water stagnation or a shallow water
table because similar conditions could occur as a result of
any of the two causative factors. However, to designate
the problem of water stagnation on the land surface,
besides waterlogging, surface stagnation and flooding have
also been used synonymously. Deep submergence depths
caused by floods are generally excluded from waterlogging
because the causative factors as well as the solutions to
such a problem could be different.
VISUAL OBSERVATIONS FOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The assessment of the degree and extent of waterlogging
can usually be made through simple observations,
interviews with local officers of the agricultural and
irrigation departments, discussions with agricultural
technicians and farmers, through communication, and
possibly some field measurements. Field reconnaissance
is necessary to find out if the problem exists. Look for the
following to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
• Standing water or wet spots in parts of the field where
the crop stand is poor. Standing water in low spots
after a prolonged dry period is a useful indicator of
the problem.
• Observe wells, gravel pits, and deep channels, which
show the depth to groundwater. In India, the water
table in open wells is commonly measured and
reported. If there are few wells, then install pits or
auger small observation wells into the soil to depths
of 1–2 m below the soil surface. If soil horizons are
reached which are gley, wet, and may contain black
or red mottles, one can assume that soils are poorly
drained at this level (1).
• Vegetative cover is a good index to the depth to the
water table in many areas. Certain grasses/crops and
trees are more common in waterlogged lands. It is
WATERLOGGING 599
a useful practice to look for these features while
surveying. Trees such as willows, cottonwood, and
poplar often thrive in high water table areas. Reed
grass and sedges are also common.
• A general yellowing of the crop is noticed in areas
that are affected by surface stagnation or have a high
water table.
• Salts in the form of a white crust on the soil surface
reveal the problem of waterlogging. Since the problem
could occur even when the crust is not present, so its
absence does not mean that there is no problem of
waterlogging.
• Absence of surface drains or their condition (full
of vegetation or plugged up) could also indicate a
problem of waterlogging/drainage.
FIELD MEASUREMENTS TO ASSESS THE PROBLEM
In the field, waterlogging is measured/assessed through
physical measurement of the depth to the water table
using open wells, tube wells, or observation wells. The
depth to the water table in the range of 0–1.5 m would
usually indicate a problem of waterlogging, although it
would depend upon the soil and crop characteristics. A
relatively shallow water table may not be a problem in
a coarse-textured soil, but even a relatively deeper water
table could cause a problem in a fine-textured soil.
In the field, the oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) is a
good measure of oxygen deficiency. ODR is measured
with an oxygen diffusion rate meter. Measurements
are usually made at a 10-cm depth replicated at
5–10 locations. Stolzy and Letey (2), in a review on
plant response to measured ODR, concluded that the
roots of many plants do not grow in soils with ODR
values of 20 × 10−8 g cm −2 min−1 . For germination and
emergence of seeds, minimum ODR values of the order of
40–80 × 10−8 g cm−2 min−1 are mentioned. The values
of ODR that indicate adequate aeration are in the range
of 20–35 × 10−8 g cm−2 min−1 (2).
The oxidation–reduction potential (redox potential,
RP) of the soil is also used as an indicator of the
problem of waterlogging. In practice, the RP of the soil
is measured with an oxygen meter using an Ag–AgCl
reference electrode. The readings can be converted relative
to the standard hydrogen electrode by adding 222 mV.
As long as O2 is present in a significant amount, the
RP remains high (800–900 mV). The oxidation–reduction
potential for reduction of NO3 − to NO2 − is 420 mV at pH 7
and 530 mV at pH 5. Nitrate is readily reduced to N2 O or
N2 at these oxidation–reduction potentials.
CAUSES OF WATERLOGGING
A large number of factors combine to create the problem or
affect the degree of the problem of waterlogging. Geomor-
phic features like palaeochannels, local depressions, lower
elements of slopes, and flat flood plains are invariably
subject to varying degrees of waterlogging. Unfavorable
topography of the terrain has a profound effect on the
magnitude of the problem. Climatic conditions such as
600 WATERLOGGING
heavy rainstorms, a characteristic of monsoon climatic
regions, coupled with poor natural drainage and/or poor
upkeep of the drainage system result in surface stagnation
of water. Development activities such as construction of
roads, bridges, railway lines, and buildings result in chok-
ing of natural drainage thus aiding surface stagnation
and a rise in the water table. Soil texture and structure
having direct bearing on water storage and transmission
could cause surface stagnation of water. Formation of a
hard layer at plow depth in rice–wheat rotation prolongs
the surface stagnation of water, especially in areas of
poor on-farm water management. Prolonged heavy pre-
cipitation and a high water table resulting in reduced
absorption of rainwater is a sure prescription for surface
water stagnation. Increasing encroachment of wetlands
for developmental activities compounds the situation.
Many factors that result in surface stagnation aid
the buildup of the water table in a region. However,
a rise in the water table is an inevitable consequence
of introducing surface irrigation through the interbasin
transfer of water. Several factors together determine the
rate at which the water table would rise in a given setting.
Sources of excess soil water that result in high water
tables include high precipitation in humid regions, surplus
irrigation water and canal seepage in irrigated lands, and
artesian pressure. The geomorphologic setting of an area
and the presence of impervious substrata/hard pan such as
clay pan, calcic layer, duripan, or fragipan could obstruct
the downward movement of water and cause short-term
waterlogging. If such conditions persist for long, the land
might develop a perched water table.
EFFECTS OF WATERLOGGING
Both air and water in appropriate proportions are essential
for plant growth. Disturbance of the delicate balance
between these two components as a result of waterlogging
results in poor aeration. Except for winter conditions, an
air-filled porosity of less than 10% is considered to indicate
inadequate aeration. Because gases in general, diffuse
about 1000 times more slowly in water than in air (3),
this causes an imbalance in the proportion of oxygen and
carbon dioxide in the root zone. This imbalance manifests
its effect on the physiological processes of the plants and
on the nutrient status of the soils. The chemistry and
microbiology of submerged lands is quite different from the
chemistry and microbiology of nonsubmerged lands (4).
This can affect the availability of many nutrients. For
example, nitrogen can undergo denitrification more readily
and be lost to the atmosphere as a gas. Leaching of
plant nutrients could also result in their nonavailability
to plants. The anaerobic (reducing) environment results in
changes that can result in deficiencies (reduced uptake) or
toxicities (excess). For example, the increased availability
of silicon apparently decreases the uptake of iron, whereas
sulfide, ferrous, and manganese ions accumulate in
waterlogged soils. The important inorganic and organic
compounds that are produced in submerged soils are iron,
sulfides, and organic acids. Ponnamperuma (4) reported
that the level of ferrous iron in submerged soils often
exceeds 3000 ppm. Such levels could be toxic to rice plants,
although the degree of toxicity may depend upon the
pH and the presence of hydrogen and ferrous sulfide.
Soil sulfate under highly reduced conditions as might
occur in submerged land is reduced to H2 S. Some of
the organic acids such as acetic, propionic, and butyric
are found in submerged soils; acetic acid is the most
abundantly available carboxylic acid. These acids are toxic
to rice seedlings.
All biological processes are strongly influenced by soil
temperature. Waterlogged soils have a large heat capacity
and therefore, are relatively colder than dry soils. Crop
growth in waterlogged soils, therefore starts later and is
slower than in dry soils.
The unconfined compressive strength of a soil is
exponentially related to the moisture content. Water
content is the chief factor determining the strength and
also the deformation characteristics of cohesive soils.
As a result, dry soils can support heavy loads because
of the rigidity of the individual soil particles and the
high internal friction of the soil mass. At high moisture
content, the soil is susceptible to plastic deformation
and consolidation. With increasing soil moisture, it loses
its load-bearing capacity altogether. As a result, heavy
machinery cannot be employed on waterlogged lands.
A direct consequence of this would be delays in the
sowing/harvesting operations of crops. To manipulate the
soil without compaction or puddling, the moisture content
of the soil must be below some critical level, depending
upon the soil type. Compared with sand, clays have a
narrow range of water content in which tillage will readily
break the soil. The timeliness of the operation significantly
affects the yield of crops in humid regions and in soils that
have high clay content. Even the quality of the crop is
affected because of the delay in harvesting.
Besides what has been stated before, excess water and
the resulting continuously wet root zone can lead to some
serious and fatal diseases of the root and stem (5).
It is now apparent that the adverse effect of temporary
waterlogging depends not only on plant species but also on
the physiological stage of growth, the time and duration
of waterlogging, the light intensity, the temperature, and
the fertility of the soil. Injury to crops is particularly
severe when crops are flooded on hot days. The ill
effects are generally greater if the waterlogging conditions
are accompanied by salinity/sodicity. It is now known
that no single factor affects crop yield in waterlogged
soils. Generally, it is a combination of poor aeration,
reduced uptake of plant nutrients, imbalance between
the uptake of various ions, and the toxic effects of various
elements/cations.
The ill-effects of surface stagnation of water and a high
water table extend beyond the agricultural sector. The
anticipated adverse effects of waterlogging are listed in
Table 1.
SURFACE STAGNATION AND CROP YIELDS
Excess water in the crop root zone is injurious to plant
growth. Crop yields are drastically reduced on poorly
drained soils, and in cases of prolonged waterlogging,
 WATERLOGGING 601

Table 1. Anticipated Losses due to Waterlogging

Agriculture Landscape and Infrastructure Socioeconomic

Decline in agricultural production Damage to infrastructure Increased socioeconomic disparity

Restriction on crops Landscape degradation Increased expenditure on health
related services
Decline in product quality Decline in ecosystem health Migration from rural to urban areas
Damage to soil health Increased gender disparity

plants eventually die. Crops vary in their tolerance to sur-
face stagnation. Considerable variation in waterlogging
tolerance exists between and within species (6,7). Some
crops thrive if water stagnates on cropped land. Lowland
rice is one such fine example. However, most dry foot
crops are adversely affected, and their yields are reduced.
The late Arthur Hodgson, considered a world leader on
the topic, extensively and intensively studied the effect of
surface stagnation of water on cotton yield. Williamson
and Kriz (8) reviewed experiments on flooding and water-
logging. Their conclusion is that when plants are actively
growing, the severity of injury depends on the growth stage
and the time of the year at which flooding takes place. The
influence of the latter is closely related to soil and air
temperatures. The Indian experience, however has been
that in semireclaimed alkaline lands, surface stagnation
at an early growth stage is relatively more harmful than
at later growth stages. It might be due to the fact that
most crops are sensitive to salts at early growth stages.
Considerable work has been reported on the flooding
tolerance of rice (9–11). The extent of damage or yield
reduction as a result of water stagnation depends on
the crop tolerance, crop growth stage at which water
stagnation occurs (12–15), duration of water stagna-
tion/flooding (16–18), soil type, air and soil temperature,
and other agroclimatic conditions. Studies have also been
conducted on the imbalance between the uptake of various
ions to identify the causes of yield reduction (19–22) and
amelioration of adverse effects through additional doses of
nutrients (21,23,24).
Because crop conditions vary over time, it would be
essential and useful to integrate the degree of surface
stagnation and duration to assess adverse effects. Some
limited attempts in this direction have been made. In spite
of their limitations, these concepts could serve as starting
point for more elaborate investigations.
To integrate the effect of excess water and time on crop
yield, tomato yields were related to the number of days
that the soil is >10 mm wetter than field capacity. It has
been shown that, on average, the yield declined by 0.26%
for every day that the soil is >10 mm wetter than field
capacity (5,25).
Gupta and Pandey (26), following Sieben (27), inte-
grated the effect of depth of surface stagnation on the yield
of rice. According to their hypothesis, rice yield might not
suffer due to occasional high depths of water stagnation.
However, at some time, the yield might start decreasing.
According to this hypothesis, the stress due to excess water
depth, Ewd, could be expressed as follows:

n 
m no harm to the plants. Deep-rooting fruit trees tend to
Ewd = (Dij − d)Pij Fj for Dij ≥ d
i=1 j=1
in which Ewd is the depth day index, cm days; Dij is the
depth of stored water at the ith depth interval and jth
crop stage, cm; d is the optimum depth of ponding, cm;
Pij are the number of days for which submergence occurs
in the jth growth stage, days; m is the number of growth
stages; n is the number of days in a given growth stage;
and Fj is a constant depending on the stage of growth of
a given variety. Using the data reported by Gupta and
Pandey (28), it was observed that the crop yield decreases
only to the extent of 6.4% at a depth day index of 250 (26).
The yield is not reduced until the depth day index is
150. This technique is a powerful tool to work out the
severity of waterlogging as well as the actual time to carry
out drainage.
Gupta et al. (29), while reviewing the Indian experience
in crop yield influenced by the duration of water
stagnation, attempted to develop a crop production
function as affected by duration of water stagnation. It was
found that a piecewise linear model of the same nature
reported by Maas and Hoffman (30) fit the studied data
sets well. Crops have a threshold duration up to which
there is no yield decline till the threshold is reached;
beyond that, there is a linear decrease in the crop yield till
the duration at which the crop yield is likely to be zero.
Gupta et al. (31) confirmed the validity of the model while
comparing the production functions for three winter crops.
The duration of water stagnation at which decline in yield
would be 50%, is 7.2 days for wheat, and it is 7.9 and 12.2
for mustard and barley.
GROUNDWATER DEPTH AND TOLERANCE OF CROPS
Per se, a shallow depth of groundwater is not harmful to
plants. Indirectly, it determines the prevailing moisture
conditions and therefore has an influence on water supply,
aeration, and the heat properties of soils. As such, the
yields of most crops are affected when groundwater is
shallow. As with surface stagnation, crops also vary in
their tolerance to a high water table (Table 2). Lowland
rice can thrive on soils that have a shallow water table.
Studies on the Ill-Effects of a High Water Table
Numerous laboratory and lysimeter/field experiments on
the effect of water table depth on crop yields have
been conducted at various locations. Lewis and Wor (32)
reported that orchards in Oregon require, ideally, a water
table depth of 180–250 cm, but a higher water table
persisting for 3 to 4 days following rain or irrigation does
(1) suffer most when the water table is close to the surface
such that it helps establish a shallow rooting system. Roe
602 WATERLOGGING
Table 2. Tolerance Levels of Crops to High Groundwater
Table (Groundwater at 50 cm)
Tolerance Level Crops
High tolerance Sugarcane, potatoes, rice, willow, plum,
broad beans, strawberries, some
grasses
Medium tolerance Sugar beet, wheat, oats, citrus, bananas,
apple, barley, peas, cotton, pears,
blackberries, onion
Sensitive Maize, tobacco, peaches, cherries, olives,
peas, beans, date palm
Source: Internet Search.
(33) reviewed the work on yields of vegetables related
to water table depth in the eastern United States. The
general finding is that a water table from 30–60 cm from
the surface is required for most vegetable crops. Penman
(34) observed that citrus trees in Australia, remained in
healthy condition for the first 8–10 years where a water
table was within 120 cm from the surface. Adverse effects
appeared thereafter.
Williamson and Kriz (8) provide a good account of the
tolerance of crops to a constant water table. The data given
agree fairly well with values mentioned by Williamson and
van Schilfgaarde (35), Williamson and Carrekar (36), and
Feddes (37). In these papers, required water table depths
of 60 to 90 cm for sandy soils and 100 to 150 cm for
clay soils are mentioned; the depth within these ranges
depends on soil type, crop, and climatologic conditions.
The relative tolerance of crops to waterlogging has also
been listed according to the cause of damage (8). It is
now known that the responses of agricultural crops vary
genetically and physiologically to the water regime and
therefore, crops that are not adapted to a high water table
receive a severe setback when roots encounter a high water
table. The extent of damage depends upon the crop, the
crop growth stage at which high water table conditions
occur, the duration of the high water table, the soil type
and agroclimatic conditions.
Visser (38) described an intensive survey of prevailing
groundwater table depths in The Netherlands. A general
crop production function was described as (1) an increasing
yield as depth increases at shallow depths, (2) a certain
optimum range, and (3) a yield decline at greater
groundwater depths. At shallow depths, the crop suffers
from lack of aeration, but at greater depths, water
deficiency is the cause of yield depression. This kind of
crop production function is expected when more or less the
same amounts of irrigation are given to crops.
Though accepting this logic, it is now known that the
contribution of the water table to meet a part of the
crop water requirement should not be overlooked (39,40).
By properly scheduling irrigation, the shape of the
crop production function could be altered significantly.
The actual experience and field results substantiate
the observation that using careful management, crop
production can be increased even when the water table
is shallow. For an equivalent yield of a wheat crop under
a different water table, the amount of irrigation needs to
be decreased as water table depth decreases. For example,
Pandey and Sinha (41) observed that an equivalent yield
of wheat could be obtained when the number of irrigation
were varied from 0 to 4 as the water table was lowered
from <75 cm to 150 cm. No hard and fast rule can decide
the optimum depth to the water table for a given crop.
The information given in the literature should be treated
only as a guideline. To take advantage of the shallow
water table contribution to the crop water requirement,
controlled drainage has been perfected. It has been shown
that controlled drainage helps to reduce water stress at
least in low rainfall years and more N use by plants (42,43).
Under field conditions, soil–plant systems vary contin-
uously; evaluating the effect of water table on plant growth
would require integration of water table depth over time
during the entire growing season.
Sieben (27), when reviewing the results of experimental
drainage fields in the Dutch Ysselmeer polders, drew
special attention to the influence of high fluctuating winter
water tables. He took 30 cm below surface as a critical level
and computed so-called SEW30 values from

n
SEW30 = (30 − xi ) (2)
i=1
where xi are daily water table depths below the surface.
For this computation only xi values smaller than 30 are
taken into account, so that the sum is a measure of the
excess over the 30-cm level. Large SEW values generally
indicate poor drainage conditions. It seems that at SEW
values of 100 to 200, there is a decrease in yield. The
analysis also revealed that the tolerance of four crops
is in the order of winter wheat > peas > oats > winter
barley. The yield of wheat is not adversely affected till this
index passes the 200 mark, whereas barley is tolerant to
waterlogging only up to an index of 120.
Questions of the validity of this concept have been
raised mainly on the basis that identical SEW values do
not necessarily imply identical conditions. It is also argued
that the concept does not account for the stage of growth
at which shallow depths to the water table occur (44).
Although, it should be possible to modify the Sieben Eq. 2
to avoid such criticism, yet the nonavailability of data
on crop growth stage dependent factors would usually
make such modification an academic exercise. A recent
attempt to determine crop susceptibility factors for five
growth stages for corn and soybean could provide answers
to such a criticism (45). These authors also concluded that
normalized crop susceptibility factors for wet stress might
be roughly approximated for some crops from existing data
on yield response to dry stress.
Comparative Assessment of Stress Due to Surface Stagnation
and a High Water Table
Several experimental results exist in the literature where
adverse effects on crop performance at the same site due
to surface stagnation as well as a high water table have
been studied (19,46). However, in many studies, it has
not been possible to compare the results, as the stress
levels cannot be compared. Ahmad et al. (46) however,
imposed equivalent stress levels based on Equation 2, as

proposed by Sieben (24). At the same stress level due to
submergence and depth to the water table of 15 cm, crop
vegetative growth and shoot uptake of N, P, and K were
significantly less for submergence than due to shallow
depth to the water table.
MANAGEMENT AND RECLAMATION
OF WATERLOGGED LANDS
Waterlogging is a widespread problem under different
agroclimatic conditions, so several options have been field
tested to minimize the adverse effects of waterlogging.
Among them are land forming (bed plantation, raised and
sunken beds); crop selection in favor of tolerant crops;
skipping or delaying irrigation so that crops can draw a
part of their water requirement from the shallow water
table; applying less water per irrigation; cultural practices
such as hoeing and weeding, including chemical control of
weeds; application of additional doses of nutrients through
soil or foliar application, and mulching to minimize
secondary salinization. However, note that these are short-
term measures and might or might not be useful in each
and every case. Therefore, improvement in drainage seems
to be essential, as it would be the only permanent solution
to the problem.
The lack of drainage or the inadequacy of it is rapidly
becoming a major constraint on agricultural production.
The productivity of agricultural lands can be sustained
only if drainage improvements are undertaken on cropland
currently affected by submergence or high water tables.
Very often, the natural drainage in an area along with good
water management is sufficient to eliminate excess water
and to preclude the need for drainage systems. However,
there are many situations where surface drainage would
be required. In humid regions as well as in monsoon
climatic conditions where rain storms of 100 mm or more
in one day can be anticipated, even in arid and semiarid
regions, surface drainage is an essential prerequisite to
avoid water stagnation. Farmers who have heavy textured
soils, soils with a plow layer that develops in lowland rice-
wheat systems, alkaline lands with poor water absorption
characteristics, or those who rely mainly on surface
irrigation should have adequate surface drainage facilities
to remove excess water. A uniform slope of about 1:1500 is
desirable to drain irrigation water or rainfall off a field.
If recharge to the groundwater is more than the
discharge and is natural drainage is unable to take care
of this recharge, such a situation calls for subsurface
drainage. Subsurface drainage may be accomplished either
through the construction of open trenches or through
buried clay or concrete tiles or perforated pipes. It must,
however, be realized that most crops have an optimum
depth to the water table for optimum crop yields. If the
water table were lowered beyond this depth, there would
not be any significant effect on the yield of the crops, and
additional investment in intensive drainage would not
be beneficial.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Robinson, G.W. (1949). Soils, Their Origin, Constitution and
Classification, 3rd Edn. Murby, London.
WATERLOGGING 603
2. Stolzy, L.H. and Letey, J. (1964). Measurement of oxygen
diffusion with platinum micro-electrodes. Correlation of
plant response to soil oxygen diffusion rates. Hilgardia 35:
567–576.
3. Grable, A.R. (1966). Soil aeration and plant growth. Adv.
Agron. 18: 57–106.
4. Ponnamperuma, F.N. (1972). The chemistry of submerged
soils. Adv. Agron. 24: 29–96.
5. Poysa, V.W., Tan, C.S., and Stone, J.A. (1987). Flooding
stress and the root development of several tomato genotypes.
Hort. Science 22: 24–26.
6. Finn, B.J., Bourget, S.J., Nielson, K.F., and Dow, B.K. (1973).
Effect of different soil moisture tensions on grass and legume
species. Canadian J. Soil Sci. 41: 16–23.
7. Francis, C.M. and Poole, M.L. (1973). Effect of waterlogging
on the growth of annual medicago species. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.
Anim. Husb. 13: 711–713.
8. Williamson, R.E. and Kriz, G.J. (1970). Response of agricul-
tural crops to flooding, depth of water table and gaseous
composition. Trans. ASAE 13: 216–220.
9. Joshi, M.S. and Dastane, N.G. (1965). Excess water tolerance
of summer cereals. Indian J. Agron. 10: 289–298.
10. Halim, A., Ching, H.F., Standifer, L.C., Yaacob, O., and
Yoong, S.C. (1973). Some factors in maize production. In
Crop diversification in Malaysia. The Proc. of the Conf. held
at Kualalumpur, Malaysia.
11. Purvis, A.S. and Williamson, R.E. (1972). Effect of flooding
and gaseous composition of the root environment on growth
of corn. Agron. J. 64: 674–678.
12. Erickson, A.E. and van Doren, D.M. (1960). The relation of
plant growth and yield to soil oxygen availability. 7th, Int.
Cong. Soil Sci. Trans. (Madison, WI) 3: 428–434.
13. Orchard, P.W. and Jessop, R.S. (1985). The response of
sorghum and sunflower to short-term water logging. III. Root
growth effects. Plants and Soil 88: 421–340.
14. Soomaro, A.B. and Waring, S.A. (1987). Effect of temporary
flooding on cotton growth and nitrogen nutrients in soils with
different organic matter levels. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 38: 91–99.
15. Sorte, N.V. et al. (1997). Effect of water logging on perfor-
mance of soybean cultivars at various growth stages. Journal
of Soils and Crops 7: 171–174.
16. Howell, T.A. and Hiler, E.A. (1974). Effect of inundation
period on seedling growth. Trans. ASAE 17: 276–284, 294.
17. Chauhan, Y.S. (1987). Screening for Tolerance to Salinity and
Waterlogging: Case Studies with Pigeon pea and Chickpea.
In: Proceedings of the Consultants Workshop on Adaptation
of Chickpea and Pigeon pea to Abiotic Stresses. N.P. Saxena
and C. Johansen (Eds.). ICRISAT, A.P., India, pp. 93–103.
18. Singh, Y.V., Swarup, A., and Gupta, S.K. (2004). Effect of
short-term waterlogging on growth, yield and mineral
composition of sorghum. Agrochimica, XLVI (in press).
19. Chaudhary, T.N., Bhatnagar, V.K., and Prihar, S.S. Corn
yield and nutrients uptake as affected by water table depth
and soil submergence. Agron. J. 67: 745–749.
20. Sharma, D.P. and Swarup, A. (1988). Effect of short-term
flooding on growth, yield and mineral composition of wheat in
sodic soil under field conditions. Plant and Soil 107: 137–143.
21. Swarup, A. and Sharma, D.P. (1993). Influence of top dressed
nitrogen in alleviating adverse effects of flooding on growth
and yield of wheat in a sodic soil. Field Crop Res. 35: 93–100.
22. Hoang, B., Johnson, J.W., Nesmith, D.S., and Bridges, D.C.
(1995). Nutrients accumulation and distribution of wheat
genotype in response to waterlogging and nutrient supply.
Plant and Soil 172: 47–54.
604 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
23. Paul, H. and DeLong, W.A. (1949). Phosphorus studies (I)
effect of flooding on soil phosphorus. Sci. Agric. 29: 137–147.
24. Hodgson, A.S. (1982). The effects of duration, timing and
chemical amelioration of short-term water logging during
furrow irrigation of cotton in a cracking clay. Aust. J. Agric.
Res. 33: 1019–1028.
25. Gales, K.R. (1976). Effects of Waterlogging on Plant Water
Relationships. Annual Report 1975, ARC Letcombe Labora-
tory, pp. 40–42.
26. Gupta, S.K. and Pandey, R.N. (1983). Effect of depth and time
of rainwater storage in the field on the yield of rice during the
monsoon. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 53: 804–806.
27. Sieben, W.H. (1964). Effect of drainage conditions on soil N
supply and yield. Landbouwk Tijdscher 76: 784–802.
28. Gupta, S.K. and Pandey, R.N. (1979). Crop and water yields
as affected by rainwater storage in rice fields- a field
evaluation. Field Crops Res. 3: 365–371.
29. Gupta, S.K., Singh, R.K., and Pandey, R.S. (1992). Surface
drainage requirement of crops: application of a piecewise
linear model for evaluating submergence tolerance. Irrigation
& Drainage systems 6: 249–261.
30. Maas, E.V. and Hoffman, G.J. (1977). Crop salt tolerance:
current assessment. J. Irrig. Drainage Div. 103: 115–134.
31. Gupta, S.K. et al. (2004). A comparative assessment of
tolerance of three Rabi crops to water stagnation on soil
surface. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. submitted.
32. Lewis, M.R. and Wor, A. (1931). Orchard Drainage in the
Medford Area- Jackson County, Oregon. Oregon State Agri.
Coll. Exp. Sta. Circ. 100.
33. Roe, H.B. (1936). Influence of Depth of Groundwater Level on
Yields of Crops Grown on Peat Land. Minnesota Agri. Exp.
Sta. Bull. No. 330.
34. Penman, F. (1938). Soil conditions at bamawn and ballendella
in relation to citrus growth. Jour. Dept. Agric. Victoria: 1–36.
35. Williamson, R.E. and van Schilfgaarde, J. (1965). Studies
on crop response to drainage. II. Lysimetric studies. Trans.
ASAE 8: 98–102.
36. Williamson, R.E. and Carrekar, J.R. (1970). Effect of water
table on evapotranspiration and crop yield. Trans. ASAE 13:
168–170, 176.
37. Feddes, R.A. (1971). Water, Heat and Crop Growth. Med.
Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, p. 184.
38. Visser, W.C. (1958). De Landbouwaterhuishouding in Ned-
erland. Comm. Onderz. Landb. Waterhuish. Ned. TNO.
Rapport-nr, 1: p. 231.
39. Timsina, J., Garrity, D.P., and Pandey, R.K. (1993). Water
table gradients effect on the performance of diverse cowpea
cultivars. Agronomy J. 85: 359–367.
40. Ibrahim, S.M. (1999). Wheat cultivation under limited irri-
gation and high water table conditions. Egyptian J. Soil Sci.
39: 361–372.
41. Pandey, S.L. and Sinha, A.K. (1971). Studies on water table
position, soil properties, crop growth and yield under drained
and undrained conditions. Indian J. Agronomy 16: 494–501.
42. Evans, R.O., Cummings, J.R., and Gilliams, J.W. (1989).
Controlled Drainage: A Best Management Practice in North
Carolina. ASAE Paper 892695, St. Joseph, MI.
43. Fisher, M.J. et al. (1999). Water table management, nitrogen
dynamics and yield of corn and soybean. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
63: 1786–1795.
44. Cannel, R.Q. et al. (1980). Effect of water logging at different
stages of development on the growth and yield of winter
wheat. J. Sci. Food and Agric. 31: 117–132.
45. Evans, R.O., Skaggs, R.W., and Sneed, R.E. (1990). Normal-
ized crop susceptibility factors for corn and soybean to excess
water stress. Trans. ASAE 33: 1153–1161.
46. Ahmad, N., Kanwar, R.S., Kaspar, T.C., and Bailey, T.B.
(1992). Effect of soil surface submergence and a water table in
vegetative growth and nutrient uptake of corn. Trans. ASAE
35: 1173–1177.
47. Tsai, S. and Chu, T.M. (1997). Effects of Waterlogging on
Growth and Yield of Maize VII. Recovery Responses of
Maize Plants after Drainage. Bulletin of National Pingtung
Polytechnic Institute 6: 85–93.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
MARIANNE MCHUGH
MICHELLE CLARKE
JULIA DUZANT
Cranfield University
North Wyke, Devon, United
Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
Water quality is important for a wide range of reasons
including human health, food production, recreation, and
biodiversity. Globally, agriculture exerts big demands
and impacts on water supplies. In arid areas where
groundwater may be the significant or sole source of
water, agriculture can have profound effects on the rate
and composition of groundwater recharge (1), while in
tropical areas, high annual rainfall levels and the demands
of tropical crops mean that water quality concerns are
dominated by agrochemicals, untreated wastewater, and
eroded sediment (2). In temperate zones, moderate rainfall
throughout the year means there are few periods when
agricultural activities can take place without some risk
to water quality and, consequently, temperate water
resources are also at constant risk of contamination from
agriculture.
The range of agriculturally derived pollutants that may
compromise water quality is listed in Table 1. Delivery
of these contaminants to water may be associated with
surface water runoff or with the movement of eroded
soil particles. Contamination of water in agricultural
landscapes also occurs directly, such as when grazing
animals enter watercourses for access, drinking water,
or shade. The contamination of water has widespread
implications for human and animal health, for plant and
animal biodiversity, and for safe and economical water
industries, including water abstraction, fish farming, and
water sports. Because of these implications, the protection
and maintenance of water quality is legislated both
nationally and internationally. In the following sections,
the sources, mechanisms, and mitigation of agriculturally
derived threats to water quality are described.
NITROGEN (N)
Nitrogen, as nitrate, is soluble, is retained inefficiently in
soils, and is only weakly adsorbed by eroded sediment.
 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE 605

Table 1. Pollutants of Concern Within Agricultural Landscapes (5)

Category Main Pollutants Example Sources Example Environmental Impacts

Soil Silt, phosphorus, pesticides Soil cultivation and drainage, Silting of river bed gravels damaging
overgrazing, outdoor pig systems; fish spawning, invertebrate and
diary and beef herds plant habitats; excessive turbidity
affecting plant growth and fish
behavior; excessive sedimentation
affecting rooted plants; economic
costs to water abstractors; acts as
carrier of other pollutants such as P
and pesticides
Slurry, manure, Organic matter, nutrients, Slurry and manure storage and Deoxygenation and eutrophication,
dirty water pathogens, ammonia, application to land; excretion affecting all aquatic life; blooms of
metals directly to land; runoff from farm toxic blue-green algae; carrier of
yards and buildings; irrigation pathogens and pollutants
Fertilisers Nitrate, phosphate Inorganic fertilizers; slurry and Eutrophication causing ecological
manure degradation; increased water
treatment costs
Veterinary Antibiotics, hormones, Slurry and manure application to Toxicity to aquatic species;
medicines growth regulators, land; sheep dip application and contamination of potable supplies
parasite control disposal
Disinfectants Halogens, organic chemicals, Use in diaries, pig and poultry Toxicity to aquatic species;
phosphorus housing contamination of potable supplies;
eutrophication causing ecological
degradation

Runoff from agricultural farms is therefore a major
source of N entering rivers, lakes, and coastal waters,
particularly in areas of intensive livestock farming where
stocking rates are high and feed is imported. Nitrogen
levels in waters draining arable land are also high
because of fertilizer inputs (surplus N not absorbed by
the crops is discharged into groundwater, fresh water,
and coastal waters), and because ploughing encourages
organic N mineralization [the process by which organic N
is converted to plant-available inorganic N (ammonium)
by microorganisms]. Subsurface movement and loss of N
also increases with sward age and drainage.
Nitrogen pollution of waters has significant detrimental
effects. Apart from acidification due to nitrification of
ammonium and the toxicity of various forms of N, the most
significant impact is that of eutrophication, described as
the most important environmental problem facing aquatic
ecosystems in Europe (3). The process of eutrophication in
surface waters can lead to a decrease in species diversity,
oxygen depletion, increased sedimentation, and increases
in toxic blue-green algae. Nitrogen also represents a
hazard to human, particularly baby, health when present
in drinking water supplies.
Preventing N pollution would require shifting from
intensive arable and horticultural land use to extensive
unfertilized grassland, which is socially and economically
untenable. Therefore, the most effective ways to minimize
excessive N leaching from agriculture include switching
to organic farming (which would reduce N inputs), using
minimum cultivation (which would reduce runoff genera-
tion), and planting a cover crop (such as rye or mustard)
after harvest and before the next crop (which would
reduce runoff generation and increase N uptake). Addi-
tional beneficial management practices include choosing
high yielding crops to maximize uptake of N, calculating
fertilizer requirements making allowance for existing soil
N and organic amendments, avoiding unnecessary fertil-
izer applications, applying fertilizers away from water-
courses, maintaining disease-free crops (as these cannot
use N efficiently), and practising careful irrigation to avoid
runoff. Alternatively, a curative approach of blending
water with low N supplies or biological or chemical treat-
ment to encourage denitrification may be employed (4),
although this approach is more costly and less effective
than preventing N pollution in the first instance.
PHOSPHORUS (P)
In the United Kingdom more than 50% of P entering
surface waters is now thought to be derived from
agriculture (5). There are three sources of P available
in the landscape for mobilization and transfer to
water bodies:
1. Soils contain different background levels of P and,
therefore, different levels of P sensitivity to natural
transfers in both soluble and sediment-laden forms
through runoff and subsurface water flows. Transfer
rates depend on the parent material, rainfall, and
vegetation cover.
2. Their high specific surface area means soil particles
detached during soil erosion have high adsorption
capacity for nutrients such as P, which results
in an enrichment of P in eroded sediments. The
rates of detachment and transfer are accelerated
by human impacts such as arable farming and
livestock grazing.
3. Transfers can occur where P is added to the land in
manures and fertilizers, although best management
606 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
practices are available to farmers to minimize
these effects.
The relative proportions of P loss in sediment-bound
and dissolved forms are highly site specific. Sediment-
associated P constitutes the majority of P transported
in surface runoff from agricultural land (5). However,
dissolved P has a greater impact on water quality than
sediment-bound P because it is more readily biologically
available (6).
Phosphorus can negatively affect the quality of soils,
groundwater, and surface water through eutrophication.
In fresh waters, where P is considered the main limiting
plant nutrient, elevated P loads tend to favor a few
species and promote excessive algal growth. Submerged
plants are lost and there are consequential impacts on
invertebrate and fish species. As well as the diminished
conservation status of eutrophic waterbodies, elevated P
concentrations have been associated with impaired human
and animal health.
To prevent these impacts, mitigation approaches
address P sources or transfer mechanisms of both
sediment-associated and runoff-dissolved P. Source
approaches try to limit soil P content or its susceptibil-
ity to transfer, and include applying P based purely on the
needs of the crop and the existing amount of residual soil
P, or using chemical amendments to alter soil chemistry
and hence reduce the solubility of soil P. Adding alum,
for example, encourages P to precipitate with Fe (iron)
and has been successfully applied to reduce runoff P con-
centrations (7). The alternative approach to controlling P
is to limit transfer by reducing the occurrence and mag-
nitude of transfer agents, especially runoff and sediment
production. Measures to do this include increasing ground
cover, contour cultivation, and minimum tillage. Uncul-
tivated buffer strips at field edges, constructed wetlands,
and ponds are also efficient at retaining P in agricultural
runoff, but edge of field P transport can still occur in
soils experiencing significant amounts of lateral subsur-
face flow (such as sandy soils). Also, while buffer strips can
contain P bound on sediment, over time P storage within
the buffer strip may create an active source of P flushed
out in runoff during storm events.
ORGANIC MATTER
Organic matter as a pollutant concerns animal feces
and urine (1) derived directly from grazing (unhoused)
livestock, (2) deposited within housing or yards and stored,
often with soiled bedding, as slurry or manure, or (3)
combined with dairy parlor washings, silage effluent, and
runoff from livestock yards and housing as dirty water.
Runoff of slurry, manure, or dirty water after
application to land can occur with excess application, when
heavy rain follows spreading, or where the terrain is too
steep or insufficiently vegetated to ensure plant uptake of
such applications. Contamination is also more likely where
applications of organic material are close to drains and
watercourses, where livestock have uncontrolled access to
watercourses, and from farms with inadequate or poorly
managed dirty water management systems.
Field or farmyard runoff containing organic matter may
result in chronic organic enrichment of streams, ponds,
lakes, and ditches. The organic material is broken down by
bacteria causing deoxygenation of the water, because the
biochemical oxygen demand of these materials can be one
to two orders of magnitude higher than that of untreated
domestic sewage. This loss of oxygen leads, in turn, to
loss of invertebrate and fish life. In addition, organic
matter from diffuse agricultural sources, especially from
slurry and manure, may contain fecal bacteria, including
Escherichia, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia species, which,
in sufficient quantities, may be harmful or even fatal to
human health.
Measures to minimize the risk of organic matter
contamination of watercourses can be applied at the
source, or during application or transfer stages. Manure
can be treated to reduce pollution potential before
land spreading, using chemical, biological, physical, or
thermal processes. These processes may have additional
benefits such as the recovery of nutrients including P (8).
Alternatively, diet manipulation can be used to reduce
the nutrient content of excreta without compromising
animal performance (9). Within the farm area, runoff
from animal enclosures and yards requires collection or
diversion to storage or treatment areas to prevent runoff
to watercourses. This is easier if clean water from roofs is
diverted before coming into contact with organic material.
Stored dirty water may then be applied to land, so that
nutrients can be taken up by the crop. In storage systems
for organic material, overflow or seepage can be prevented
through careful siting of stores to avoid permeable soils
and rock, effective sealing of the storage unit, regular
checking and emptying to minimize overflow, and the
diversion of surface water or rainwater (10).
Reducing organic matter contamination of water can be
achieved by maintaining adequate storage facilities and
land for application, maximizing knowledge of manure
nutrient content and crop nutrient requirements, and
employing best management practices, such as avoiding
spreading when the soil is saturated or frozen, and
minimizing application to steeply sloping land near
watercourses. Applying soil erosion and runoff control
measures is also effective in reducing organic pollutant
transfer. The longer manure is in or on the soil before crops
can use its nutrients, the greater the risk and opportunity
for loss of nutrients and contaminants to surface waters.
Spreading organic matter in spring or summer ensures
maximum use of nutrient content and avoids the risk of
spreading on frozen ground or before rainfall. Spreading
should be at a rate appropriate to the crop and variable
within the field according to slope, morphology, and
proximity to watercourses. The pollution potential of
grazing animals can be minimized by restricting access
to streams. Once applied to land, transport of organic
pollutants in runoff and sediment may be hindered by
contour cultivation and the use of buffer strips.
SEDIMENT
The detachment and transport of soil particles from the
land is known as soil erosion. Eroded soil particles enter
 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN AN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
rivers during periods of high rainfall and consequently
high surface runoff. Sediment loads depend on land use,
cultivation techniques, stocking densities, drainage, soils,
slopes, geology, and rainfall. Heavy sediment loads can
occur as a result of soil compaction (which may be
associated with loss of organic matter, heavy machinery,
multiple cultivations, or excessive livestock densities),
soil capping, cultivation of inappropriate land (e.g., steep
land), concentrated flow pathways along farm tracks and
drainage systems, and the removal of natural runoff
interceptors (such as hedges and uncropped land).
Sediment is considered a pollutant in its own right
and as a carrier of adsorbed pollutants. Sediment itself
increases water turbidity and smothers the bed of rivers
and lakes when deposited in watercourses. Fine sediment
particles clog river gravels, reducing water flow and
aeration of the river bed and hence reducing the survival
of fish eggs, invertebrates, and plants. Also, through their
adsorption onto soil particles and aggregates, the transfer
of sediment carries P, pesticides, pathogenic fecal bacteria,
heavy metals, and other contaminants into surface waters.
Mitigation of the impacts of sedimentation may be
focused at the source, although interception of sediment
during transfer is also effective. Full consideration of site
soil conditions is vital before any access or agricultural
work is undertaken, as is avoiding unnecessary or ill-
timed cultivations and access when the soil is wet
and most susceptible to degradation. Positive measures
to prevent soil erosion include contour cultivation and
drainage, minimum or no tillage cultivation, establishing
terraces or strip-cropping, maintaining vegetation cover
through restricted grazing and the planting of cover
crops, and maintaining and promoting soil organic matter
content through mulching and incorporation of crop
residues. Measures to minimize transport and delivery
of eroded sediments to watercourses include employment
of uncultivated buffer strips, grassed waterways, and
sediment traps to filter suspended sediment from runoff.
Sedimentation ponds or constructed wetlands can reduce
runoff velocity and encourage sedimentation outside the
watercourse system (11).
PESTICIDES AND OTHER CHEMICALS
A pesticide is defined as any substance prepared and used
for the destruction of any pest. Pesticides therefore include
herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, antifoulants, sheep
dips, masonry and timber preservatives, and veterinary
medicines. Agriculture and horticulture account for over
80% of pesticide sales, and applications in crop production
are the main source of pesticides that may leach (move
in water through the soil profile) to groundwater or
run off to surface water in dissolved or particulate
form. Pesticide characteristics, soil type, cultivation, and
drainage all affect pesticide transport to water. Heavy
rain after spraying increases the chance of pesticide
movement in runoff. Loss may also occur through
spray drift and volatilization, and research has shown
that a high proportion of pesticides in surface waters
may come from very small farmyard spills and drips
from handling and sprayers: these often fall onto hard
607
surfaces, from which they are readily washed into drains,
ditches, and watercourses. The use and disposal of
sheep dip is a particular risk to fresh waters: water is
contaminated by dips located near watercourses and by
inappropriate disposal of spent dip. Veterinary medicines
and disinfectants used on dairy herds also pose a risk to
the aquatic environment.
Pesticides are likely to have toxic effects on aquatic
organisms either directly through toxicity or indirectly
through changes in the environment. The impacts of pesti-
cides range from rapid destruction of the tissues in contact
with the pesticide to slow deterioration in a physiological
process. Exposure to sublethal concentrations may cause
genetic, physiological, or behavioral changes, including
reproduction impairment, inhibition of brain activities,
and growth reductions (12).
Pesticides applied to cropland are degraded by
microbial and chemical reaction in the soil, temporarily
immobilized by adsorption onto soil particles and organic
matter, taken up by plants or pests, removed when
the crop is harvested, or lost to the environment
through runoff in surface water, volatilization into the
atmosphere, and leaching to groundwater. For weakly
to moderately adsorbed pesticides, the major carrier is
runoff, and therefore controlling the loss of pesticides
and persistent organic pollutants to watercourses involves
reducing runoff. The most important factor affecting the
amount of pesticide transported is the amount of pesticide
present at the soil surface at the time of precipitation or
irrigation. Reducing pesticide pollution can be promoted
through the use of natural predators, crop rotations,
integrating pesticide control with soil conservation, and
using mechanical procedures, such as conservation tillage
and vegetative strips (buffers), to reduce runoff and soil
erosion and hence the loss of organic chemicals. The way in
which the pesticide is applied may also affect pesticide loss.
For example, tillage may incorporate the pesticide into the
soil, so reducing the risk of pesticide loss by runoff.
HEAVY METALS
Heavy metals (high density elements naturally present in
very low abundance in nature) of concern in agricultural
landscapes include arsenic, cadmium, boron, selenium,
nickel, lead, and mercury. Agricultural use of mineral
fertilizers, feed concentrates, and medicines all contribute
to farm inputs of heavy metals, although atmospheric
deposition may also play a role, as in the deposition of lead
and cadmium (13). Heavy metal transfer to water occurs
through leaching and through adsorption onto eroded soil
particles (preferentially onto clay particles) subsequently
deposited within waterbodies (14).
When leached to surface waters, heavy metals are toxic
to aquatic organisms (of particular concern is the impact
of mercury on fish) and can impact negatively on drinking
water quality. Several heavy metals, including mercury
and lead, are known to bioaccumulate in the aquatic
food chain.
Mitigating heavy metal contamination of water
requires amending the source, plant uptake, and trans-
fer of heavy metals. The choice of soil amendments (e.g.,
608 CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT
manure, compost, sludge, or mineral fertilizers) impacts on
the heavy metal content of agricultural soils and hence on
availability for transfer to waterbodies. Reducing manure
use will reduce inputs of copper and zinc, for example, but
the corresponding increase in mineral fertilizer required to
maintain productivity may increase soil cadmium. Alter-
natively, changing farm management, for example, from
arable to mixed farming, may reduce heavy metals at the
source because of the overall reduction in fertilizers and
manures used.
Minimizing the availability of heavy metals for transfer
from the field can be achieved by increasing the ratio of
grass to arable crop species or choosing particular arable
crops to maximize plant uptake (e.g., metal removal from
soil is much higher for sugar beet than for potatoes
or wheat) (13). Alternatively, soil can be managed to
minimize heavy metal transfer, through liming to raise
pH levels and hence minimize leaching, or the application
of soil conservation measures (such as minimum tillage
and contour cultivation) to minimize heavy metal losses
associated with soil erosion.
CONCLUSION
Water for food production, drinking, recreation, and
ecology is an important but increasingly threatened global
resource. The impacts of agricultural land use on the
quality of water resources are numerous and include
serious economic, health, and environmental implications
from a wide range of specific pollutant threats. There
are, however, a wide variety of measures available to
minimize the sources, movement, and impacts of these
agriculturally derived pollutants, most of which help to
control pollution from more than one source. Control
of water pollution within agricultural landscapes is,
therefore, both necessary and achievable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Oren, O., Yechieli, Y., Böhlke, J.K., and Dody, A. (2003).
Contamination of groundwater under cultivated fields in an
arid environment, Central Arava Valley. Israel. J. Hydrol.
290(3–4): 312–328.
2. Hernández-Romero, A.H., Tovilla-Hernández, C., Malo, E.A.,
and Bello-Mendoza, R. (2004). Water quality and presence of
pesticides in a tropical coastal wetland in southern Mexico.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 48(11–12): 1130–1141.
3. McGarrigle, M.L. (1998). Impact of eutrophication on Irish
river water quality. In: Eutrophication in Irish Waters. J.G.
Wilson (Ed.). Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, Ireland.
4. Hatch, D., Goulding, K., and Murphy, D. (2002). Nitrogen.
In: Agriculture, Hydrology and Water Quality. P.M. Haygarth
and S.C. Jarvis (Eds.). CABI, Wallingford, UK.
5. DEFRA. (2002). Agriculture and Water: A Diffuse Pollution
Review. The Government’s Strategic Review of Diffuse Water
Pollution from Agriculture in England. DEFRA, London.
6. Frink, C.R. (1991). Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries.
J. Environ. Qual. 20: 717–724.
7. Campbell, K.L. and Edwards, D.R. (2001). P and water
quality impacts. In: Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution.
W.F. Ritter and A. Shirmohammadi (Eds.). Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL.
8. Greaves, J., Hobbs, P., Chadwick, D., and Haygarth, P.
(1999). Prospects for the recovery of phosphorus from animal
manures: a review. Environ. Technol. 20(7): 697–708.
9. Chadwick, D.R. and Chen, S. (2002). Manures. In: Agricul-
ture, Hydrology and Water Quality. P.M. Haygarth and S.C.
Jarvis (Eds.). CABI, Wallingford, UK.
10. Ritter, W.F. (2001). P and water quality impacts. In:
Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution. W.F. Ritter and A.
Shirmohammadi (Eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
11. Novotny, V. (2003). Water Quality: Diffuse Pollution and
Watershed Management, 2nd Edn. John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
12. Gevao, B. and Jones, K.C. (2002). Pesticides and persistent
organic pollutants. In: Agriculture, Hydrology and Water
Quality. P.M. Haygarth and S.C. Jarvis (Eds.). CABI,
Wallingford, UK.
13. de Vries, W., Romkens, P.F.A.M., van Leeuwen, T., and
Bronswijk, J.J.B. (2002). Heavy metals. In: Agriculture,
Hydrology and Water Quality. P.M. Haygarth and S.C. Jarvis
(Eds.). CABI, Wallingford, UK.
14. Haygarth, P.M. and Jarvis, S.J. (1999). Transfer of phospho-
rus from agricultural soils. Adv. Agron. 66: 195–249.
CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR NATIONAL
WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT
ROBERT J. GILLIOM
GAIL P. THELIN
U.S. Geological Survey
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Water-
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is designed to
describe the status and trends in the quality of the
nation’s ground- and surface-water resources and to link
the status and trends with an understanding of the natural
and human factors that affect the quality of water. The
program integrates information about water quality at a
wide range of spatial scales, from local to national, and
focuses on water-quality conditions that affect large areas
of the nation or occur frequently within small areas.
The building blocks of the NAWQA Program are Study-
Unit investigations, which will be conducted in 60 major
hydrologic basins (Study Units) of the nation (Fig. 1). The
Study-Unit investigations consist of intensive assessment
activity for 3 years, followed by 6 years of less intensive
monitoring, with the cycle repeated perennially (Leahy
and others, 1990). Twenty Study Units will be in an
intensive data-collection and analysis phase during each
particular year, and the first complete cycle of intensive
investigations of all 60 Study Units will be completed
in 2002. The 60 NAWQA Study Units cover about
one-half of the conterminous United States, encompass
60–70 percent of national water use and of the population
This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the
public domain in the United States of America.
 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
89K
served by public water supplies, and include diverse
hydrologic systems that differ widely in the natural and
human factors that affect water quality.
The distribution of Study Units ensures that the most
important regional and national water-quality issues can
be addressed by comparative studies among Study Units.
NAWQA National Synthesis projects combine results of
Study Unit Investigations with existing information from
other programs and studies of the USGS and other
agencies and researchers to produce regional and national-
scale assessments for priority water-quality issues. The
first water-quality issues to be focused on for National
Synthesis are nutrients and pesticides.
Comparative studies among study units and national
or regional aggregations of data for National Synthesis
require consistent data on factors that affect the sources,
behavior, and effects of contaminants and other factors
that determine water-quality conditions. Natural features,
such as geology, and factors related to human activities,
such as land-use distribution, provide an environmental
framework for assessing influences on water quality in
different hydrologic systems. The emphasis of NAWQA
on large-scale water-quality issues affected by human
activities makes land-use characterization one of the
most important aspects in study design and in the
analysis of causes of water-quality conditions. Land-
use characterization based on a nationally consistent
classification system provides a basis for comparing the
influences of human activities among Study Units. It also
serves as a framework upon which to add many other
types of county-based data on human activities, such as
waste discharge or chemical use, that are associated with
land use.
The purpose of this paper is to describe a system
for classifying agricultural land for national water-
quality assessment. The system focuses on classification
of agricultural land within the 48 contiguous states.
Alaska and Hawaii were included in basic data analysis
but omitted from classification results because of their
unique characteristics. Agricultural land use is one
of the most important influences on water quality at
national and regional scales, particularly in relation to
the first NAWQA National Synthesis topics, nutrients and
pesticides. Considered nationwide, agricultural land has
609
large areal extent, a high degree of land disturbance,
and high use of agricultural chemicals and water.
Individual areas of agricultural land, however, can vary
widely in their characteristics. There is a great diversity
of agricultural activities in the nation, which follow
distinct regional patterns influenced by environmental
setting and economics. Different mixes of agricultural
activities characteristic of particular regions can have
widely varying influences on water quality because
of differences in management practices and natural
environmental setting.
METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF
THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
WEIHUA ZHANG
YONG CAI
Florida International University
Miami, Florida
Chelation and compartmentalization are important mech-
anisms for metal tolerance in plants. Thiol-containing
peptides, i.e., glutathione (GSH), phytochelatins (PCs),
and metallothioneins (MTs), are metal ligands and play
important roles in metal tolerance in plants. This article
summarizes the present knowledge about the functions of
these thiol-containing peptides in plant heavy metal toler-
ance, especially for Cd, As, and Cu. GSH participates in
the amelioration of metal-induced oxidative stress. Metal-
GSH complexes are the substrate for PC synthesis. Thus,
enhanced GSH synthesis can increase metal tolerance in
plants. PCs, a set of thiol-rich peptides with the general
structure (γ -GluCys)n -Gly, play an essential role in con-
stitutive Cd and tolerance, whereas PCs are not involved
in adaptive Cd tolerance. In contrast, PCs are required for
both constitutive and adaptive As tolerance in plants. PCs
may play a role in constitutive Cu tolerance in some plants,
but they are not involved in Ni or Zn tolerance. MTs may
play an important role in constitutive Cu tolerance, and
may be involved, to some extent, in Cd tolerance in plants.
INTRODUCTION
Heavy metals are those elements that have densities in
excess of 5 g/cm3 (1). About 40 elements fit this definition
(in this paper, we consider metalloid arsenic (As) to be a
heavy metal, because its properties are similar to those
of other heavy metals). Heavy metals are often toxic to
plants, although some heavy metals, i.e., Cu and Zn, are
essential nutrients for plants and other organisms at low
concentrations. Prolonged exposure to elevated concentra-
tions can cause toxicity symptoms for both essential and
nonessential heavy metals (e.g., Cd, Pb, Hg, As, etc.). The
toxicity may result from deactivation of proteins via the
binding of metals to sulfhydryl groups, competition for
the active site between the heavy metal and an essential
element resulting in deficiency effects (2,3), or production
of free radicals and reactive species induced by heavy met-
als (3,4). Terrestrial plants are immobile organisms, and
610 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
metal ion uptake mechanisms are not very selective. As a
consequence, plants will take up substantial amounts of
toxic heavy metals from metalliferous soils. Plants must
have developed strategies that enable them to tolerate the
presence of toxic heavy metals. Possible mechanisms for
metal tolerance in plant cells are: (a) metal binding to
cell wall; (b) reduced transport across the cell membrane;
(c) active efflux; (d) compartmentalization; and (e) chela-
tion (5). Chelation and subsequent compartmentalization
play important roles in metal tolerance in plants. A vari-
ety of compounds, such as organic acids, amino acids,
glutathione (GSH), phytochelatins (PCs), and metalloth-
ioneins (MTs), have been identified as the chelators of
heavy metals. Therefore, these ligands may be involved in
metal tolerance in plants.
Metal tolerance mechanisms in plants are categorized
as constitutive tolerance mechanisms that exist in nor-
mal plants and adaptive tolerance mechanisms that are
present in metal-tolerant plants including hyperaccumu-
lators (6). Constitutive metal tolerance mechanisms are
complex and are controlled by multiple genes. Adaptive
metal tolerance mechanisms, however, seem to involve
relatively simple control mechanisms (7). Thiol-containing
peptides glutathione (GSH), phytochelatins (PCs), and
metallothioneins (MTs) are thought to play important
roles in metal tolerance in plants (3,8–10). This article
summarizes the present knowledge about the functions
of these thiol-containing peptides in plant heavy metal
tolerance, especially for Cd, As, and Cu.
GLUTATHIONE
Glutathione (GSH), the tripeptide γ -gultamylcysteinylgly-
cine, is the major source of nonprotein thiols in most
plant cells. GSH is synthesized from γ -glutamic acid,
cystein (Cys), and glycine (Gly) by a two-step ATP-
dependent reaction. The first reaction synthesizes γ -
glutamyl cystein (γ -EC) from γ -glutamic acid and Cys
by γ -glutamylcysteine synthetase (γ -EC synthase); the
second step forms GSH from γ -EC and Gly catalyzing by
GSH synthase. GSH plays an important role in protecting
plants from oxidative stress induced by xenobiotics and
some heavy metals, thus increasing metal resistance
in plants (11). A substantial number of reports about
oxidative stress induced by a variety of metals exist, e.g.,
Cd (12–14), Cu (4,15,16), Ni (17), Hg (18), and As (19).
GSH is involved in the amelioration of metal-induced
oxidative stress in plants. For example, a wild type of
Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to Cu showed changes in
GSH and glutathione disulfide (GSSG) levels, suggesting
their participation in the amelioration of metal-induced
oxidative stress (15). A decrease in GSH synthesis leads
the hypersensitivity of plants to metals, which has been
shown in Arabidopsis exposed to Cd (12), Holcus lanatus
exposed to As (19), and Silene cucubalus exposed to Cu (4).
As metal-GSH complexes are the substrate of phy-
tochelatin synthase (PCS) (9), synthesis of PCs may lead
the depletion in the GSH pool. In the presence of metals,
GSH-metal complex may limit the rate of PC synthe-
sis (20). Therefore, an increase in GSH levels facilitates
the increase in PC synthesis and the sequestration of
metals (13). It has been demonstrated that increases in
GSH synthesis can improve metal tolerance in plants.
For example, engineered Indian mustard, which over-
expresses GSH, shows an increase in Cd tolerance and
accumulation (20,21); elevated GSH concentrations are
also involved in conferring tolerance to Ni-induced oxida-
tive stress in Thlaspi Ni hyperaccumulators (17).
Vacuolar compartmentalization is an important mech-
anism for heavy metal tolerance in bacteria and plants.
Some metals, i.e., Cd and As, need PCs to medi-
ate the vacuolar compartmentalization in bacteria and
plants (22–25). Recent studies indicate that GSH can also
mediate vacuolar compartmentalization of metals, e.g., Cd,
As, and Hg, in bacteria (26–28). In yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, which lacks PCS, a Cd-GSH complex can be
directly transported to vacuoles by YCF1, one of ATP-
binding cassette (ABC) transporter proteins located in
tonoplasm (26,29–31). YCF1 was also found to transport
As-GSH and Hg-GSH complexes to vacuoles in bacte-
ria (27,28). Recently, BPT1, another ABC transporter in
vacuoles, was found in yeast. Similar to YCF1, BPT1 also
transports GSH conjugates including the Cd-GSH com-
plex (32). However, this mechanism of metal tolerance
involving active sequestration of the metal-GSH com-
plexes into vacuoles by ABC transporters has not yet
been reported in plants.
PHYTOCHELATINS
Structures
PCs are a set of thiol-rich peptides with the general struc-
ture (γ -GluCys)n -Gly (n = 2 to 11), which are synthesized
from GSH catalyzed by PCS (33–36). They were first iden-
tified in the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe and termed
Cadystins (37,38), and isolated and characterized by Grill
et al. (39). PCs have been found in all plants studied to
date and some microorganisms (40). They are also found
in animals, i.e., nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (41).
Interestingly, some iso-phytochelatins (iso-PCs) are iden-
tified in some plants under heavy metal exposure (1). Grill
et al. found that a few members of the Fabales produced
homoPCs under Cd exposure (42). HomoPCs are synthe-
sized from homoglutathione, in which β-Ala replaces Gly
as a terminal amino acid (42). Klapheck et al. found that
hydroxymethyl-PCs [(γ -GluCys)n -Ser] were induced by Cd
in several species of the family Poaceae (43). They are
thought to be formed from hydroxymethyl-glutathione
[(γ -GluCys)n -Ser]. Meuwly et al. discovered γ -Glu-Cys-
Glu, another homologue of GSH. It is not surprising
that another iso-PC, (γ -GluCys)n -Glu (n = 2 − 3), was
induced by Cd in maize seedlings (44). Recently, iso-
PCs (γ -GluCys)n -Gln (n = 3 − 4) were isolated from the
hairy roots of horseradish exposed to Cd (45). In addi-
tion, some PC-related compounds, i.e., desglycine PCs
[(γ -GluCys)n ] (46,47), Cys-(γ -GluCys)n -Gly (n = 1–5), and
Cys-(γ -GluCys)n (47), were identified in maize.
Biosynthesis
PCs are not primary gene products. They are syn-
thesized from GSH by a specific γ -glutamylcysteine
 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
dipeptidyl transpeptidase (EC 2.3.2.15)—PCS in the
presence of metal ions (48). This enzyme transfers γ -
Glu-Cys from GSH or PC to an acceptor molecule
(i.e., GSH and PC) (49). PC synthesis reaction can be
rapidly induced in vivo by exposure to a variety of
metal cations (Cd2+ , Pb2+ , Zn2+ , Sb3+ , Ag+ , Hg2+ , Cu+ ,
Sn2+ , Au3+ , Bi3+ ) and metalloid anions [arsenate (AsV )
and arsenite(AsIII )] (1,3,10,37,50,51). The reaction is self-
regulated. Once the free metal ions are chelated by the
reaction products PCs, the reaction terminates (48,49,52).
PCS activity was identified for the first time in cell-free
extracts from suspension cultures of Silene cucubalis by
Grill et al. (48), and similar PCS activities have been
detected in pea (52), tomato (49), and Arabidopsis (53). In
1999, genes encoding PCS were first cloned and char-
acterized in Arabidopsis (AtPCS1), S. pombe (SpPCS),
and wheat (TaPCS1) (54–56). Homologous genes encod-
ing PCS have been identified in other species, i.e.,
C. elegans (CePCS) (57), Arabidopsis (AtPCS2) (55,58),
soybean Glycine max (GmhPCS1) (59), and Brassica
juncea (Indian mustard) (BjPCS1) (60).
PCS is expressed constitutively, and the levels of this
enzyme in cell cultures or intact plants are generally
unaffected by exposure to metal ions (61). Analysis of the
expression of AtPCS1 indicated that levels of mRNA were
not affected by exposure of plants to Cd (54,55). However,
RT-PCR analysis of TaPCS1 expression in wheat roots
indicated induction of mRNA under Cd exposure (56). In
addition, a recent study showed AtPCS1 of Arabidopsis
thaliana was regulated at transcriptional level during
the early stages of plant development (62). Therefore,
in some species or specific stages of plant development,
PCS activity may be regulated both at transcriptional and
posttranslational levels.
Earlier studies have shown that PCS activity
requires the binding of free metal ions to the
enzyme (48,49,52,63,64). However, a recent study has
shown that metal binding per se is not responsible for
the activation of PCS, but glutathion-like peptides con-
taining blocked thiol groups are required for the enzyme
activity (9). A similar conclusion was reached by Oven
et al. (59). Therefore, the real substrates of PCS are metal-
thiolate complexes.
Roles of PCs in Metal Tolerance
PCs are suggested to play a role in metal detoxification
and homeostasis (1,37). However, no direct evidence that
PCs are involved in homeostasis currently exists (51). It
has been demonstrated that PCs play an essential role in
constitutive Cd and As tolerance in plants. In addition,
PCs may be required for adaptive enhanced As tolerance.
Some indications exist that PCs may play a role in Ag, Cu,
and Hg tolerance (55,56). However, the role of PCs in Cu
tolerance in plants has been debated (54–56,65). A paucity
of information exists about the roles of PCs for Ag and Hg
tolerance in plants. Zn and Pb are weak activators for PC
synthesis (48,50), and genetic and biochemical evidence
has shown that PCs are not involved in Zn tolerance in
plants (53–55,65–68). No evidence exists that PCs are
involved in Pb tolerance in plants. Ni cannot induce PC
611
synthesis (48,50), thus PCs are not involved in Ni tolerance
in plants.
Cadmium. Cd is a strong activator for PC synthesis, and
PCs and Cd can form detectable complexes in vivo (48,50).
PCs play an essential role in normal constitutive Cd
tolerance in plants (3,10,37,51,64,69,70). This conclusion
is supported by a variety of biochemical and genetic
evidence. In vitro, PCs have been shown to substantially
decrease the toxicity of Cd to metal-sensitive plant
enzymes, such as alcohol dehydrogenase, glyceraldehyde
3-phosphate dehydrogenase, nitrate reductase, ribulose
1,5-diphosphate carboxylase, and urase (71). In normal
S. vulgaris, treatment with buthionine sulfoximine (BSO),
which inhibits the synthesis of the PC precursor γ -
EC, resulted in hypersensitivity to Cd (72). The most
convincing evidence comes from genetic studies. Cd-
sensitive cad1 mutants of Arabidopsis are deficient in PCS
activity and do not form Cd-PC complexes. Consequently,
these mutants are sensitive to Cd (67,68). Expression of
cDNA clones of AtPCS1 from Arabidopsis and a similar
gene TaPCS1 from wheat in S. cerevisiae resulted in a
dramatic increase in Cd tolerance (55,56). The mutants of
Arabidopsis and S. pombe that lack PCS genes exhibited
hypersensitivity to Cd and were unable to synthesize
PCs (54,56). Azuki bean cells lacking PCS activity were
also hypersensitive to Cd (73). All of this evidence strongly
suggests that PCs play an essential role in constitutive
Cd tolerance.
In addition to formation of Cd-PC complexes in
cytoplasm, sequestration of Cd-PC complexes to vacuoles
is also required for Cd tolerance (22,74). In vacuoles, the
complexes are stabilized by incorporation of acid-labile
sulfide (75). In yeast S. pombe, vacuolar sequestration
process is mediated by HMT1 (22). HMT1, a member of
ABC-type transport proteins located in tonoplasm, can
transport PCs and Cd-PC complexes to vacuoles (76).
Vacuolar compartmentalization of Cd-PC complexes has
also been observed in plants, such as tobacco (75,77), and
oat roots (23). However, plant genes encoding Cd-complex
transporter have not been characterized yet (40).
Although PCs are essential for normal constitutive Cd
tolerance, PCs are not involved in adaptive enhanced
Cd tolerance in Cd-tolerant plants. In studies that
compared Cd-tolerant plants with normal Silene vulgaris,
De Knecht et al. found that Cd-tolerant plants exhibited
a much lower PC synthesis and a lower rate of
longer PC synthesis under Cd exposure than normal
plants, and their Cd tolerance was not reduced by BSO
treatment (72,78). These observations suggest that the
enhanced Cd tolerance in Cd-tolerant S. vulgaris is not
because of differential production of PCs and synthesis
of longer chain PCs, although PCs are essential for
constitutive Cd tolerance in normal S. vulgaris (72,78).
Similar results were obtained in other studies of
S. vulgaris (65,79). In Zn/Cd hyperaccumulator Thlaspi
caerulescens, PC synthesis under Cd exposure was lower
than in nonhyperaccumulators Thlaspi arvense (80), and
BSO treatment did not increase sensitivity to Cd (65).
These results suggest that PCs are not involved in
adaptive enhanced Cd tolerance in this plant. The possible
612 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
mechanism for the adaptive enhanced Cd tolerance in
these Cd-tolerant plants is PC-independent vacuolar
sequestration (65). However, this process remains to
be elucidated.
Arsenic. Similar to Cd, AsIII can induce high levels
of PC synthesis in plants (50,81). However, it is difficult
to detect As-PC complexes in vivo, although formation
of AsIII -tris-thiolate complexes is predicted on a theoret-
ical basis (50). With improved experimental conditions,
Schmoger et al. demonstrated the formation of AsIII -PC
complexes in plants by size exclusion chromatography
and electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (24). Con-
stitutive As tolerance in plants requires the involvement
of PCs. This process may include reduction of AsV to
AsIII , formation of AsIII -PC complexes, and sequestra-
tion of the complexes into vacuoles (65,81,82). Results
from various studies support the role of PCs in consti-
tutive As detoxification in normal plants. For example,
BSO-treated cell cultures of tobacco (83,84) and Rauvolfia
serpentina (83,84), Holcus lanatus (6,82,85), and Cytisus
Striatus (6,82,85) were found to be hypersensitive to As.
The strongest evidence for the role of PCs in As detox-
ification comes from genetic studies of Arabidopsis and
S. pombe (54,55). PCS-deficient mutants of Arabidopsis
and S. pombe are highly sensitive to Cd and As (54).
Conversely, the expression of AtPCS1 from Arabidopsis
in yeast S. cerevisiae resulted in enhanced resistance to
As (55). This evidence strongly supports the argument that
PCs are essential for constitutive As tolerance in plants.
Unlike enhanced Cd tolerance in Cd-tolerant plants,
enhanced As tolerance in As-tolerant nonhyperaccumula-
tor plants may require PCs. In As-tolerant H. lanatus and
C. Striatus, suppression of phosphate/AsV uptake via an
altered high-affinity phosphate/AsV uptake system is the
adapted As tolerance mechanism that is mainly responsi-
ble for the enhanced As tolerance (6,19,82,86). However,
PCs are also involved in the enhanced As tolerance in
these As-tolerant plants via synthesis of higher levels
and/or longer chain of PCs, because BSO treatment can
cause these As-tolerant plants to be more sensitive to
As (6,82,85). These observations suggest that constitutive
production of PCs may be involved in the adaptive As
tolerance in these plants. In As hyperaccumulator Pteris
vittata, the major mechanism responsible for As hyper-
tolerance is not related to restriction of As uptake, but
may be related to enhanced vacuolar compartmentation of
As (87). PCs were suggested to play no role in As hyper-
tolerance in P. vittata (88). However, considering that PCs
are required for enhanced As tolerance in the As-tolerant
nonhyperaccumulators, PCs may play, to some extent, a
role in As hypertolerance in this hyperaccumulator, which
is supplementary to the adaptive As tolerance mecha-
nisms (87).
Copper. Cu is an essential micronutrient for plants.
The mechanisms for plant Cu tolerance have not
been elucidated. Cu ion can induce PC synthesis, and
formation of Cu+ -PC complexes are observed in vitro and
in vivo (89,90). The role of PC in Cu tolerance in plants
has been debated. Some indications exist that PCs may, to
some extent, be involved in constitutive Cu tolerance.
For instance, S. pombe cells, for which the PCS gene
expression has been disrupted, exhibit hypersensitivity
to Cd and Cu (56); PCS-deficient Arabidopsis mutant
cad1-3 is slightly sensitive to Cu, Hg, and Ag (54,91).
However, the evidence is not conclusive. Another genetic
study showed that PCS-deficient S. pombe was insensitive
to Cu, Zn, Hg, Se, or Ni ions (54). Arabidopsis exposure to
concentrations of Cu ion did not produce Cu-PC complexes,
but a change in glutathione and glutathione disulfide
contents was observed (15). In normal S. vulgaris, BSO
treatment had no effect on the plant sensitivity to Cu,
indicating that PCs are not essential for constitutive Cu
tolerance (65).
PCs are not involved in adaptive enhanced Cu
tolerance in Cu-tolerant plants. Differential Cu tolerance
in Cu-tolerant and normal S. vulgaris is not because of
differential PC production (92). The sensitivity to Cu is
unaffected by BSO treatment both in Cu-tolerant and
normal S. vulgaris, suggesting that PCs are not involved
in adaptive Cu tolerance (65). A similar conclusion was
obtained in Cu-tolerant S. cucubalus (4).
METALLOTHIONEINS (MTs)
MTs are a class of Cys-rich polypeptides (Mr: 6000–7000)
that can bind metals via thiol groups of their Cys
residues (93). MTs were first reported as Cd binding
protein in horse kidney (94). MTs have been found in
animals, plants, eukaryotic microorganisms, and some
prokaryotes (40). MTs contain characteristic motifs: Cys-
Cys, Cys-X-Cys, and Cys-X-X-Cys (5). MTs are divided into
two classes (95). Mammalian MTs containing 20 highly
conserved Cys residues are categorized as Class I (96),
whereas MTs from plants, fungi, and invertebrate animals
are grouped in Class II (97). According to the arrangement
of Cys residues, plant MTs are further classified into
four types (40,95). MTs are gene-encoded polypeptides,
and their syntheses are transcriptionally activated by
several factors such as hormones, cytotoxic agents, and
metals, including Cd, Zn, Hg, Cu, Au, Ag, Co, Ni, and
Bi metal ions (5). A wide variety of regulatory factors
and expression in many organisms suggest that MTs
have important functions (40). Although MTs have been
studied for more than 40 years, their function has not
been completely understood in animals (3,98). They may
play a role in protection against metal toxicity, function
as antioxidants, and are thought to be involved in plasma
membrane repair (3). The only confirmed function of MTs
in animals is detoxification of Cd and Zn (96,98).
MTs have been less studied in plants than in animals.
The functions of MTs in plants also remain to be
elucidated. Some indications exist that MTs may play
a role in Cu and probably Cd tolerance in plants. Cu
tolerance in Arabidopsis depends on the degree of Cu-
induced expression of type 2 MT genes (99,100). When
MT1a and MT2a genes from Arabidopsis were expressed
in a yeast strain lacking one of its endogenous MT genes
(cup1), the MT genes conferred the yeast a high level
of tolerance to Cu and a moderate level of tolerance to
Cd (101,102). Transgenic tobacco plant with expression
 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
of yeast MT gene can accumulate significantly higher
quantities of Cu than control plants (103). When an MT2b-
like gene (SvMT2b) from a highly Cu-tolerant S. vulgaris
was expressed in yeast, this gene restored cadmium and
copper tolerance in different hypersensitive strains (104).
When an MT2-like gene (tyMT) from Typha latifolia was
expressed in Cu-sensitive MT-deficient strain of yeast,
it restored the yeast’s metal tolerance (105). Transgenic
Arabidopsis, with expression of the tyMT gene, showed
an increased tolerance to heavy metals Cu and Cd (105).
Results from these studies suggest that MTs play an
essential role in constitutive Cu tolerance in these plants.
However, other studies do not support this conclusion.
For instance, In Indian mustard, Cu treatment caused
a strong increase in γ -ECS mRNA, GSH, and PCs in
roots and shoots, whereas MT2 mRNA was decreased
in response to the CuSO4 treatments (106,107); In Vicia
faba, MT1 and MT2 transcript levels are not significantly
affected by treatment with Cu, Zn, or Cd (108,109). The
observed decrease or no change in MT expression under
Cu exposure may be caused by increased levels of PC
synthesis, suggesting that Cu quenched by PCs may be
favored over sequestration by MTs in Indian mustard and
Vicia faba (106,109). As mentioned above, genetic evidence
has shown that PCs may play a role in constitutive Cu
tolerance in some plants (55,56), and constitutive metal
tolerance mechanisms are complicated and controlled by
multiple genes (7). Therefore, both PCs and MTs may
be involved in constitutive Cu tolerance in plants. For
some reasons, the PC-dependent mechanism appears to
dominate in some plants, whereas the MT-dependent
mechanism is favored in others
MTs may also be involved in adaptive enhanced Cu
tolerance in plants. Cu-tolerant S. vulgaris was found to
have significantly higher transcript levels of type 2b MT
gene than normal S. vulgaris (104). The increase in the
MT gene expression suggests that constitutive production
of MTs also contribute to the enhanced Cu tolerance,
although an adaptive mechanism is mainly responsible for
the enhanced Cu tolerance in S. vulgaris (104). Restriction
of Cu uptake may be the adaptive mechanism for the
enhanced Cu tolerance in plants. By comparison of normal
to Cu-tolerant Silene cucubalus, De Vos et al. suggested
that the adaptive Cu tolerance in this plant does not
depend on the production of PCs but is related to the
plant’s ability to prevent GSH depletion resulting from Cu-
induced PC synthesis, e.g., by restriction Cu uptake (4).
A recent study has shown that efflux of Cu across the
root plasma membrane plays a role in the Cu tolerance in
Cu-tolerant S. vulgaris (110).
In animals, MTs play an essential role in Cd
detoxification. In plants, this role is mainly occupied
by PCs (40). However, MT expression can enhance Cd
tolerance in plants. For instance, expression of mouse
MT1 gene and Nicotiana glutinosa MT gene confers
Cd resistance in transgenic tobacco plants (111,112),
suggesting that MT may play a role, to some extent, for
Cd tolerance in plants. An increase in Cd tolerance was
also found in transgenic Arabidopsis with expression of an
MT gene (105). The roles of MTs in Cd tolerance in plants
need further investigation and confirmation.
613
CONCLUSIONS
GSH, PCs, and MTs play important roles in metal toler-
ance in plants. GSH participates in the amelioration of
metal-induced oxidative stress, and metal-GSH complexes
are the substrate for PC synthesis. Thus, enhanced GSH
synthesis can increase metal tolerance in plants. PCs play
an essential role in constitutive Cd tolerance, whereas
PCs are not involved in adaptive Cd tolerance. In contrast,
PCs are required for both constitutive and adaptive As
tolerance in plants. PCs may play a role in constitutive
Cu tolerance in some plants, but they are not involved in
Ni or Zn tolerance. MTs may play an important role in
constitutive Cu tolerance, and may be involved, to some
extent, in Cd tolerance in plants.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Zenk, M.H. (1996). Gene. 179: 21–30.
2. Van Assche, F. and Clijsters, H. (1990). Plant, Cell and
Environment 13: 195–206.
3. Hall, J.L. (2002). Journal of Experimental Botany 53: 1–11.
4. De Vos, C.H.R., Vonk, M.J., Vooijs, R., and Schat, H. (1992).
Plant Physiology 98: 853–858.
5. Mejare, M. and Bulow, L. (2001). Trends in Biotechnology
19: 67–73.
6. Schat, H., Llugany, M., Vooijs, R., Hartley-Whitaker, J., and
Bleeker, P.M. (2002). J. Exp. Bot. 53: 2381–2392.
7. Schat, H., Llugany, M., and Bernhard, R. (2000). Phy-
toremediation of Contaminated Soil and Water. N. Terry
and G. Banuelos (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 171–188.
8. Noctor, G. et al. (1998). Journal of Experimental Botany 49:
623–647.
9. Vatamaniuk, O.K., Mari, S., Lu, Y-P., and Rea, P.A. (2000).
Journal of Biological Chemistry 275: 31451–31459.
10. Cobbett, C.S. and Goldsbrough, P.B. (2000). Phytoremedia-
tion of Toxic Metals 247–269.
11. Xiang, C. and Oliver, D.J. (1998). Plant Cell 10: 1539–1550.
12. Xiang, C., Werner, B.L., Christensen, E.L.M., and Oliver,
D.J. (2001). Plant Physiology 126: 564–574.
13. Siripornadulsil, S., Traina, S., Verma, D.P.S., and Sayre,
R.T. (2002). Plant Cell 14: 2837–2847.
14. Iannelli, M.A., Pietrini, F., Fiore, L., Petrilli, L., and Mas-
sacci, A. (2002). Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 40:
977–982.
15. Wojcik, M. and Tukiendorf, A. (2003). Biologia Plantarum
46: 79–84.
16. Boominathan, R. and Doran, P.M. (2003). Biotechnol Bioeng.
83: 158–167.
17. Freeman, J.L. et al. (2004). Plant Cell 16: 2176–2191.
18. Ali, M.B. et al. (2000). Bulletin of Environmental Contami-
nation and Toxicology 65: 573–582.
19. Hartley-Whitaker, J., Ainsworth, G., and Meharg, A.A.
(2001). Plant, Cell and Environment 24: 713–722.
20. Zhu, Y.L., Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., Jouanin, L., and Terry, N.
(1999). Plant Physiology 119: 73–79.
21. Zhu, Y.L. et al. (1999). Plant Physiology 121: 1169–1177.
22. Ortiz, D.F. et al. (1992). EMBO Journal 11: 3491–3499.
23. Salt, D.E. and Rauser, W.E. (1995). Plant Physiology 107:
1293–1301.
614 METAL TOLERANCE IN PLANTS: THE ROLES OF THIOL-CONTAINING PEPTIDES
24. Schmoger, M.E., Oven, M., and Grill, E. (2000). Plant
Physiology 122: 793–801.
25. Hartley-Whitaker, J. et al. (2001). Plant Physiology 126:
299–306.
26. Li, Z.S. et al. (1997). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 42–47.
27. Rosen, B.P. (1999). Trends Microbiol. 7: 207–212.
28. Gueldry, O. et al. (2003). Eur. J. Biochem. 270: 2486–2496.
29. Falcon-Perez, J.M., Mazon, M.J., Molano, J., and Eraso, P.
(1999). J. Biol. Chem. 274: 23584–23590.
30. Tommasini, R. et al. (1998). Plant J. 13: 773–780.
31. Gomes, D.S., Fragoso, L.C., Riger, C.J., Panek, A.D., and
Eleutherio, E.C. (2002). Biochim Biophys Acta. 1573: 21–25.
32. Klein, M. et al. (2002). FEBS Lett. 520: 63–67.
33. Grill, E., Winnacker, E.L., and Zenk, M.H. (1987). Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84: 439–443.
34. Rauser, W.E. (1990). Annual Review of Biochemistry 59:
61–86.
35. Steffens, J.C. (1990). Annual Review of Plant Physiology and
Plant Molecular Biology 41: 553–575.
36. Ruegsegger, A., Schmutz, D., and Brunold, C. (1990). Plant
Physiology 93: 1579–1584.
37. Rauser, W.E. (1995). Plant Physiology 109: 1141–1149.
38. Cobbett, C.S. (1999). Trends Plant Sci. 4: 335–337.
39. Grill, E., Winnacker, E.L., and Zenk, M.H. (1985). Science
230: 674–676.
40. Cobbett, C. and Goldsbrough, P. (2002). Annual Review of
Plant Biology 53: 159–182.
41. Vatamaniuk, O.K., Bucher, E.A., Ward, J.T., and Rea, P.A.
(2002). Trends in Biotechnology 20: 61–64.
42. Grill, E., Gekeler, W., Winnacker, E.L., and Zenk, M.H.
(1986). FEBS Lett. 205: 47–50.
43. Klapheck, S., Fliegner, W., and Zimmer, I. (1994). Plant
Physiology 104: 1325–1332.
44. Meuwly, P., Thibault, P., and Rauser, W.E. (1993). FEBS
Lett. 336: 472–476.
45. Kubota, H., Sato, K., Yamada, T., and Maitani, T. (2000).
Phytochemistry 53: 239–245.
46. Bernhard, W.R. and Kagi, J.H. (1987). Experientia 52:
309–315.
47. Chassaigne, H., Vacchina, V., Kutchan, T.M., and Zenk,
M.H. (2001). Phytochemistry 56: 657–668.
48. Grill, E., Loeffler, S., Winnacker, E.L., and Zenk, M.H.
(1989). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 6838–6842.
49. Chen, J., Zhou, J., and Goldsbrough, P.B. (1997). Physiolo-
gia Plantarum 101: 165–172.
50. Maitani, T., Kubota, H., Sato, K., and Yamada, T. (1996).
Plant Physiology 110: 1145–1150.
51. Cobbett, C.S. (2000). Plant Physiology 123: 825–832.
52. Klapheck, S., Schlunz, S., and Bergmann, L. (1995). Plant
Physiology 107: 515–521.
53. Howden, R., Andersen, C.R., Goldsbrough, P.B., and Cob-
bett, C.S. (1995). Plant Physiology 107: 1067–1073.
54. Ha, S.B. et al. (1999). Plant Cell 11: 1153–1164.
55. Vatamaniuk, O.K., Mari, S., Lu, Y-P., and Rea, P.A. (1999).
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 7110–7115.
56. Clemens, S., Kim, E.J., Neumann, D., and Schroeder, J.I.
(1999). EMBO Journal 18: 3325–3333.
57. Clemens, S., Schroeder, J.I., and Degenkolb, T. (2001).
European Journal of Biochemistry 268: 3640–3643.
58. Cazale, A-C. and Clemens, S. (2001). FEBS Letters 507:
215–219.
59. Oven, M., Page, J.E., Zenk, M.H., and Kutchan, T.M. (2002).
Journal of Biological Chemistry 277: 4747–4754.
60. Heiss, S., Wachter, A., Bogs, J., Cobbett, C., and Rausch, T.
(2003). J. Exp. Bot. 54: 1833–1839.
61. Cobbett, C.S. (2000). Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3:
211–216.
62. Lee, S. and Korban, S.S. (2002). Planta. 215: 689–693.
63. Loeffler, S., Hochberger, A., Grill, E., Winnacker, E.L., and
Zenk, M.H. (1989). FEBS Letters 258: 42–46.
64. Di Toppi, L.S., and Gabbrielli, R. (1999). Environmental and
Experimental Botany 41: 105–130.
65. Schat, H., Llugany, M., Vooijs, R., Hartley-Whitaker, J., and
Bleeker, P.M. (2002). Journal of Experimental Botany 53:
2381–2392.
66. Harmens, H., Den Hartog, P.R., Ten Bookum, W.M., and
Verkleij, J.A.C. (1993). Plant Physiology 103: 1305–1309.
67. Howden, R. and Cobbett, C.S. (1992). Plant Physiol. 100:
100–107.
68. Howden, R., Goldsbrough, P.B., Andersen, C.R., and Cob-
bett, C.S. (1995). Plant Physiology 107: 1059–1066.
69. Goldsbrough, P. (2000). Phytoremediation of Contaminated
Soil and Water. N. Terry and G. Banuelos (Eds.). CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 221–233.
70. Clemens, S., Simm, C., and Maier, T. (2003). Biopolymers 8:
255–288.
71. Kneer, R. and Zenk, M.H. (1992). Phytochemistry 31:
2663–2667.
72. De Knecht, J.A., Koevoets, P., Verkleij, J.A.C., and Ernst,
W.H.O. (1992). New Phytologist. 122: 681–688.
73. Inouhe, M., Ito, R., Ito, S., Sasada, N., Tohoyama, H., and
Joho, M. (2000). Plant Physiology 123: 1029–1036.
74. Speiser, D.M., Abrahamson, S.L., Banuelos, G., and Ow,
D.W. (1992). Plant Physiology 99: 817–821.
75. Reese, R.N., White, C.A., and Winge, D.R. (1992). Plant
Physiol. 98: 225–229.
76. Ortiz, D.F., Ruscitti, T., McCue, K.F., and Ow, D.W. (1995).
Journal of Biological Chemistry 270: 4721–4728.
77. Voegeli-Lange, R. and Wagner, G.J. (1990). Plant Physiol.
92: 173–212.
78. De Knecht, J.A. et al. (1994). Plant Physiology 104: 255–261.
79. Leopold, I., Gunther, D., Schmidt, J., and Neumann, D.
(1999). Phytochemistry 50: 1323–1328.
80. Ebbs, S., Lau, I., Ahner, B., and Kochian, L. (2002). Planta.
214: 635–640.
81. Sneller, F.E.C. et al. (1999). New Phytologist. 144: 223–232.
82. Bleeker, P.M., Schat, H., Vooijs, R., Verkleij, J.A.C., and
Ernst, W.H.O. (2003). New Phytologist. 157: 33–38.
83. Nakazawa, R., Ikawa, M., Yasuda, K., and Takenaga, H.
(2000). Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 46: 271–275.
84. Schmoger, M.E., Oven, M., and Grill, E. (2000). Plant
Physiol. 122: 793–801.
85. Hartley-Whitaker, J., Woods, C., and Meharg, A.A. (2002).
New Phytologist. 155: 219–225.
86. Meharg, A.A. and Macnair, M.R. (1992). Journal of Experi-
mental Botany 43: 519–524.
87. Zhang, W., Cai, Y., Downum, K.R., and Ma, L.Q. (2004).
Environ Pollut. 131: 337–345.
88. Zhao, F.J. et al. (2003). New Phytologist. 159: 403–410.
89. Reese, R.N., Mehra, R.K., Tarbe, E.B., and Winge, D.R.
(1988). J. Biol. Chem. 263: 4186–4192.

90. Mehra, R.K. and Mulchandani, P. (1995). Biochemical Jour-
nal 307: 697–705.
91. van Vliet, C., Anderson, C.R., and Cobbett, C.S. (1995).
Plant Physiol. 109: 871–878.
92. Schat, H. and Kalff, M.M.A. (1992). Plant Physiology 99:
1475–1480.
93. Stillman, M.J. (1995). Coordination Chemistry Reviews 144:
461–511.
94. Margoshes, M. and Vallee, B.L. (1957). JACS 79: 4813.
95. Cobbett, C. and Goldsbrough, P. (2002). Annu. Rev. Plant
Biol. 53: 159–182.
96. Klaassen, C.D., Liu, J., and Choudhuri, S. (1999). Annual
Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 39: 267–294.
97. Robinson, N.J., Tommey, A.M., Kuske, C., and Jackson, P.J.
(1993). Biochem J. 295: 1–10.
98. Palmiter, R.D. (1998). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:
8428–8430.
99. Murphy, A. and Taiz, L. (1995). Plant Physiol. 109: 945–954.
100. Murphy, A., Zhou, J., Goldsbrough, P.B., and Taiz, L. (1997).
Plant Physiol. 113: 1293–1301.
101. Zhou, J. and Goldsbrough, P.B. (1994). Plant Cell 6:
875–884.
102. Zhou, J. and Goldsbrough, P.B. (1995). Mol. Gen. Genet. 248:
318–328.
103. Thomas, J.C. et al. (2003). Biotechnol. Prog. 19: 273–280.
104. van Hoof, N.A. et al. (2001). Plant Physiol. 126: 1519–1526.
105. Zhang, Y.W., Tam, N.F.Y., and Wong, Y.S. (2004). Plant
Science 167: 869–877.
106. Schafer, H.J., Greiner, S., Rausch, T., and Haag-Kerwer, A.
(1997). FEBS Lett. 404: 216–220.
107. Schafer, H.J., Haag-Kerwer, A., and Rausch, T. (1998).
Plant Mol. Biol. 37: 87–97.
108. Foley, R.C. and Singh, K.B. (1994). Plant Mol. Biol. 26:
435–444.
109. Foley, R.C., Liang, Z.M., and Singh, K.B. (1997). Plant Mol.
Biol. 33: 583–591.
110. Van Hoof, N.A.L.M. et al. (2001). Physiologia Plantarum.
113: 225–232.
111. Pan, A. et al. (1994). Plant Mol. Biol. 24: 341–351.
112. Suh, M.C., Choi, D., and Liu, J.R. (1998). Mol. Cells 8:
678–684.
MICROIRRIGATION
DOROTA Z. HAMAN
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Microirrigation has been defined in the Standards of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) as
‘‘frequent application of small quantities of water on or
below the soil surface in form of drops, tiny streams or
miniature spray.’’ In microirrigation systems, water is
applied through emitters or applicators placed along a
water delivery line (lateral line) adjacent to the plant
row (1). Microirrigation includes all methods of frequent
water application, in small flow rates, on or below the
soil surface. The terms drip, trickle, and spray irrigation,
common since the 1960s, have been supplanted by the term
MICROIRRIGATION 615
‘‘microirrigation,’’ which is now commonly used throughout
the industry. Microirrigation is sometimes called ‘‘localized
irrigation’’ to emphasize that only a targeted part of the
soil volume is wetted during water application. The other
name that is frequently and incorrectly used is ‘‘low
volume irrigation.’’ In reality, a microirrigation system
is characterized by low flow rates that are expressed in
terms of water volume per time (L/h, m3 /h), but the total
volume (liters or cubic meters) delivered can be large.
Microirrigation systems are designed to transport
water from a source through a delivery network of pipes
and various types of emitters to a crop. The general goal
of a microirrigation system is to provide irrigation water
uniformly and efficiently to a crop to help meet the water
needs of plants and to maintain a favorable root zone water
balance. Ideally, the volume of water is applied directly to
the root zone in quantities that approach the consumptive
use of the plants. Additional goals of microirrigation can
be to increase fruit or fiber production, to maintain crop
visual quality, to protect plants and/or fruits and flowers
from extreme temperature conditions (hot or cold), to apply
crop or soil chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), or to
dispose of wastewater, which can be an important water
and nutrient resource.
Microirrigation is usually characterized by the fol-
lowing features: (1) low water application rates, (2) high
frequency of water application, (3) water applied near or
into the root zone, (4) low pressure delivery system, and
(5) delivery of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals
with irrigation water (fertigation and chemigation).
In microirrigation systems, water is distributed using
an extensive hydraulic pipe network (Fig. 1) that conveys
water from its source to the plant. Outflow from the
irrigation system occurs through emitters placed along
the water delivery (lateral) pipes in the form of droplets,
tiny streams, or miniature sprays. The emitters can be
placed either on or below the soil surface. Microirrigation
systems are classified by the type of emitters used in the
system. These are drip, bubbler, spray jet (or microspray),
and microsprinkler. The system can also be subdivided
into the point source emitters and line source emitters
(Fig. 1). Point source emitters are spaced sufficiently far
apart to create individual discrete water patterns and they
are used for trees or widely spaced shrubs. Line source
emitters are used for row crop production. The emitters are
placed along the line closely enough to create a continuous
wetted band along the crop row. In addition, line source
(drip) systems can apply water above the ground or below
the ground. Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) systems are
becoming more popular due to potentially high efficiency.
A typical flow rate of a point source emitter is less
than 12 L/h. The flow rate of a line source emitter is
given per length of lateral and is also less than 12 L/h per
meter. Bubblers emit much larger volumes of water, but
usually less than 225 L/h, where the microsprinklers and
jet sprays are limited to 175 L/h.
The emitter is designed to reduce the operating
pressure from the supply line, and a small volume
of water is discharged at the emission point at low
pressure. Emitters can vary from sophisticated, constant
616 MICROIRRIGATION
Line source emitters
Manifold
or
Header
Laterals
Chemical
tank
Pumping
station
Filtration
system
Figure 1. An example of a basic microirrigation system.
flow rate at variable pressure types of devices (pressure-
compensating emitters) to very small, simple orifices. A
large number of different types of emitters have been
developed in attempts to find a perfect device. The main
objective is to assure uniformity of water distribution.
It is essential that the discharge from the emitter is
uniform and that it not change significantly with small
pressure variations in the system. At the same time,
the emitter should be constructed in such a way that
it does not clog very easily. The cost and the size are
also important. The emitters presently available on the
market can be classified into five distinct categories:
(1) long path emitters, (2) short path orifice emitters,
(3) vortex emitters, (4) pressure-compensating emitters,
and (5) porous pipe or tube emitters (line source drippers).
Emitters are placed along laterals, the final water
delivery lines, designed for uniform water distribution.
The lateral line is generally constructed of flexible
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polyethylene hose (PE). It is
often placed above the ground, but it can be buried. For row
crops, in the line source type of microirrigation system, a
lateral line combines the function of the line and the
emitter. These include laterals constructed from porous
Point source emitters
Submain Laterals
Main line
Backflow prevention
Water meter
Injection pump
Check valve
Pressure gauge
Pressure regulator
System Valve
control
pipe, twin-bore PE pipe, or PE pipe provided with evenly
spaced, built-in emitters. Each manufacturer of line source
emitters supplies data with allowable length of laterals
and recommended pressure for particular line source
systems. Recommendations are based on the hydraulic
characteristics of the product. The emitters, which may
be connected to the lateral using a variety of connectors
during installation of the irrigation system, are usually
placed at predetermined positions, for example, at the
base of the irrigated tree.
Lateral lines are attached to manifolds or submains.
The manifolds and submains, which distribute the water
to the specific parts of the field, are usually constructed
from flexible smooth-walled, noncollapsible, black PE or
flexible PVC pipe that can be left on the soil surface or
buried. If rigid (usually white or purple) PVC pipe is
used for the lateral line, it should be buried beneath the
soil surface for protection against sunlight damage and
prevention of algae growth in the line. The controls for
adjustment of flow rate and pressure are usually located
in the submain or manifold line along with valves and
timing devices for the separate parts of the field. Water
is delivered to the field by the main line. The main line

is usually constructed from white PVC pipe that is buried
beneath the soil surface for protection against harmful
sunlight. Purple color is required for all PVC components
in the system using reclaimed wastewater. The pipe should
be properly rated for the particular application and able
to withstand the design pressure in the system.
A main control station, often called the ‘‘control head,’’ is
usually located close to the water supply. A typical control
station includes the pump, a backflow prevention system,
a chemical injection system for fertilizers, chlorine, or
other chemicals, and a combination of different filters. A
main line valve and flowmeter are also included in the
control head. Microirrigation systems can be controlled
manually or automatically. Automatic control can be
electromechanical (clock) or electronic (computer). The
controller is often located next to other components of
the control station. It can control the main valve, chemical
injection, backflushing of filters, solenoid valves, and other
controls located at remote locations in the irrigation
system. Depending on the system, all or some of these
components can be automated.
In microirrigation systems, only a portion of the total
field area is wetted. The goal is to only wet the root
zone of the crop of interest. Water flowing from the
emitter is distributed in the soil by gravity and capillary
forces creating the contour lines presented in Fig. 2, often
referred to as ‘‘onion’’ patterns. The exact shape of the
wetted volume and moisture distribution will depend on
the soil texture, initial soil moisture, and, to some degree,
the rate of water application. In the line source type of
microirrigation tube that is frequently used for row crops
such as vegetables, where the emitters are spaced very
closely, individual ‘‘onion’’ patterns connect, creating a
continuous moisture zone along the row.
Microirrigation systems have many potential advan-
tages compared to other irrigation methods. Most of them
are related to the low rates of the system. It can be argued
that some of these benefits are not unique to a microir-
rigation system. However, certain combinations of these
Figure 2. Wetted pattern under drip irrigation (line source type of emitter) in a sandy soil.
MICROIRRIGATION 617
advantages are responsible for uniqueness of microirriga-
tion in contrast to other systems.
WATER SAVINGS
Irrigation water requirements can be smaller with
microirrigation when compared with other irrigation
methods since a smaller portion of the soil volume is
wetted, there is decreased evaporation from the soil
surface, and there is reduction or elimination of the runoff.
The losses due to evaporation from the soil are significantly
reduced compared with other irrigation systems because
only a small surface area under the plant is wetted and
it is usually well shaded by the foliage. A microirrigation
system allows for a high level of water control application
and water can be applied only when needed in precisely
controlled amounts. Deep percolation can be minimized
or avoided.
SMALLER FLOW RATES
Since the rate of water application (L/S) in microirrigation
systems is significantly lower than in other systems,
smaller sources of water can be used for irrigation of
the same acreage. The delivery pipes, the pump, and other
components of the system can be smaller and therefore
more economical. The systems operate under low pressure
(35–200 kPa) and require less energy for pumping than
high pressure irrigation systems.
APPLICATION OF CHEMICALS
Microirrigation systems allow for a high level of control
of chemical applications. The plants can be supplied with
the exact amount of fertilizer required at a given time.
They are applied directly to the root zone and reduction
in the total amount of fertilizer used is possible. There is
also an advantage to the frequent application of fertilizers
Leteral Spacing
Dripper Dry surface
Salt
Wetted
accumulation
depth
Moisture
contours
Wetted
width
618 MICROIRRIGATION
through the system (fertigation) in humid climates. In
case of rain, only a small portion of recently applied
fertilizer will be washed out and it can easily be replaced
through the irrigation system, reducing the potential
environmental hazard due to nutrient leaching from
the production system. Fertigation is more economical,
provides better distribution of nutrients throughout the
season, and reduces groundwater pollution due to the
high concentration of chemicals that could ordinarily move
with deep percolated water. Other chemicals, such as
herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, growth
regulators, and carbon dioxide can also be efficiently
applied through microirrigation systems to improve crop
production. This process of chemical application is called
chemigation.
WATER SOURCES WITH HIGH SALT CONTENT
Water with relatively high salt content can be used in
microirrigation systems. For optimum plant growth a
certain range of total water potential in the root zone
must be maintained. The potential defines how difficult it
is for a plant to extract water from the soil. Large negative
numbers are characteristic of very dry soils with low
total water potentials, while potentials near zero reflect
soils near saturation. The total water potential in the
root zone is a sum of the matrix potential and osmotic
potential. Since matrix potential is close to zero under
well-managed microirrigation (high moisture content), the
osmotic potential component can be a relatively large
negative value, indicating high salt content, without a
harmful effect on plant growth. This is not true for other
irrigation systems.
IMPROVED QUALITY OF THE CROP
Microirrigated plants are supplied very frequently with
small amounts of water and the stress due to the moisture
fluctuation in the root zone is reduced to the minimum,
often resulting in larger and better quality yield. In arid
climates, or during dry seasons, proper water management
can control the harvest timing.
ADAPTATION TO ANY TOPOGRAPHY
Microirrigation systems can operate efficiently on hilly
terrain if appropriately designed and managed. A well-
managed microirrigation system will minimize runoff even
on hilly terrain.
ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES OF MICROIRRIGATION
SYSTEMS
During dry seasons or in arid climates, disease and insect
damage can be reduced under the microirrigation system
since the foliage of the plant is not wetted. With a small
portion of soil surface being watered, field operations can
be continued during irrigation. Water distribution is not
affected by the wind in drip irrigation. However, wind
can have some effect on spray jet patterns. Germination
and water uptake by the weeds between the rows can
also be significantly reduced since these areas remain
dry. Microirrigation systems can also be extensively
automated, decreasing labor and operating costs.
To operate satisfactorily, a microirrigation system has
to be correctly designed and managed to account for the
physical properties of soil, quality of irrigation water,
and water requirements of the grown plants. Usually,
microirrigation requires a higher management level
than other irrigation systems. With all the advantages
listed above, a microirrigation system is not a system
without problems.
CLOGGING
One of the biggest problems encountered under microirri-
gation is the clogging of the emitters. The small openings
can easily be clogged by soil particles, organic matter,
bacterial slime, algae, or chemical precipitates. Microir-
rigation systems require very good filtration (most often
recommended is 200 mesh screen) even with a high quality
water supply.
MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION
Moisture distribution depends largely on the soil type
being irrigated by the microirrigation system. In some
soils, for example, deep sands, very little lateral water
movement (low capillary forces) can create many problems.
Under these conditions it is difficult to wet a significant
portion of the root zone since most of the water moves
downward due to gravity. It is also more difficult to manage
the irrigation without deep percolation since only a small
amount of water can be stored in the wetted volume
desired. Increasing the number of emitters per plant may
improve water distribution in the soil. As a result, coarse
sands require much closer spacing of emitters than fine
soils. In general, for any soil, the number of emitters and
their spacing must be based on the geometry of wetted soil
volume. It is important to realize that the microirrigation
system wets only a limited portion of the potential soil root
volume. Most of the plants can perform very well under
these conditions. However, there is a minimum volume
of roots that have to be wetted or a reduction in yield
will result.
SALT BUILDUP
Microirrigation systems can use saline water. However, a
problem may occur from salts accumulating at the edges of
the wetted zone during prolonged dry periods. Light rain
can wash these salts into the root zone and cause injury
to the plants. In arid climates, where the rainfall is less
than 10 in./yr, an additional irrigation system (sprinkler
or surface) may be necessary to leach accumulated salts
from the soil. In areas with heavy rainfall the salts
will be washed out of the root zone before significant
accumulation occurs.
 MICROIRRIGATION 619

Table 1. Extent of Microirrigation (in hectares) in Selected Countries and

the World During the Period 1981–2000
Country 1981 1986 1991 2000

United States 185,300 392,000 606,000 1,050,000

India 20 0 55,000 260,000
Australiaa 20,050 58,758 147,011 258,000
Spain 0 112,500 160,000 230,000
South Africa 44,000 102,250 144,000 220,000
Israel 81,700 126,810 104,302 161,000
France 22,000 0 50,953 140,000
Mexicoa 2,000 12,684 60,000 105,000
Egypt 0 68,450 68,450 104,000
Japana 0 1,400 57,098 100,000
Italy 10,300 21,700 78,600 80,000
Thailanda 0 3,660 45,150 72,000
Colombiaa 0 0 29,500 52,000
Jordan 1,020 12,000 12,000 38,300
Brazila 2,000 20,150 20,150 35,000
China 8,040 10,000 19,000 34,000
Cyprus 6,000 10,000 25,000 25,000
Portugal 0 23,565 23,565 25,000
Chinese Taipeia 0 10,005 10,005 18,000
Moroccoa 3,600 5,825 9,766 17,000
Othera 50,560 38,821 100,737 177,000
Total world 436, 590 1, 030, 578 1, 826, 287 3, 201, 300
a
Areas for these countries adjusted from 1991 figures according to the average percentage increase
of other countries that had provided updated information to ICID.
Source: Adapted from Reference 2.

INITIAL COST sprinkler irrigation, 11.5 million ha (45.1%) by gravity

The initial investment and maintenance cost for a
microirrigation system may be higher than for some
other irrigation methods. Filters, chemical injectors,
and possible automation components add to the cost
of a microirrigation system. Actual costs will vary
considerably depending on the selection of a particular
microsystem, required filtration equipment, water quality,
water treatment, and selection of automation equipment.
ADDITIONAL DRAWBACKS
Rodents and insects can create additional maintenance
problems by chewing holes in the plastic. In addition,
some components of the system can easily be damaged
by persons unaware of their locations. A microirrigation
system does not provide significant frost protection when
compared to sprinkler irrigation; however, it is commonly
used for this purpose in citrus production where it can
provide some protection.
CURRENT IRRIGATED AREA
In 1977, the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) estimated that the total
global irrigated area was 223 million ha. By 1996 this
estimate increased to about 262 million ha. The 2000
irrigation survey conducted by the Irrigation Journal
(2001) listed 25.5 million ha irrigated in the United States.
Approximately 12.7 million ha (49.9%) were irrigated by
irrigation, and 1.3 million ha (4.9%) by microirrigation.
Results of the surveys conducted by the International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), summa-
rized (Table 1) by Reinders (2), indicate that microirriga-
tion has increased from 0.4 to 3.2 million ha between 1981
and 2000. In the United States, California, Florida, Wash-
ington, Texas, Hawaii, Georgia, and Michigan account for
approximately 91% of the microirrigated land area. It is a
small fraction of the total irrigated area; however, many
of the high value crops that require intensive production
practices are grown under microirrigation and the area of
marginal lands that are microirrigated is increasing.
Almost all crops can be suitable for microirrigation;
however, due to the high cost, microirrigation is primarily
used on high value perennial crops, tree and vine crops,
fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals. There is growing
interest in applying microirrigation to lower valued field
crops, such as cotton and corn or sugar cane, through the
use of multiyear subsurface drip irrigation (SDI). Appli-
cation of microirrigation for landscaping, greenhouses,
and nurseries has also increased tremendously. Large
containerized nursery plants are typically irrigated with
microirrigation. In addition, an increase of microirriga-
tion in residential properties and highway roadsides often
prompted by water restriction and/or high cost can be
observed in many areas of the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ASAE Standards. (2003). Design and Installation of Microir-
rigation Systems. ASAE EP405.1 FEB03, ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI.
620 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
2. Reinders, F. (2000). Micro-irrigation: a world overview. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Sixth International Micro-Irrigation Congress.
Capetown, South Africa, Oct. 22–27
MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO
EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
HARENDA SINGH CHAUHAN
G.B. Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology
Pantnagar, India
Microirrigation, earlier known as Drip or Trickle irrigation
is a highly efficient method of water application. It
developed and expanded globally at a fast rate in the
last two decades in more than 35 countries with maximum
coverage in the United States. This is most appropriately
applicable to widely spaced crops such as fruits, vegetables
and field crops. Its different variations consist of surface
trickle, bubbler, microsprinkler, spray, mechanical move,
pulse, subsurface drip, all of which are covered under
a single term microirrigation. In the present article,
its advantages, components, system design, fertigation,
automation and other aspects has been described. Also
the extent of application to different crops, and in
different countries, limitations, scope, research trends and
strategies of promotion has been discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The world is facing a serious shortage of fresh water due
to dwindling resources. There is growing competition for
clean water making less water available for agriculture,
the largest consumer of water which accounts for more
than 70% of total withdrawals for the world at large. The
average irrigation efficiency of the world is fairly low. As
per Gittinger (1), if this efficiency can be raised by 10%,
the total conserved water will equal the water required
in the world for all other uses. According to Smith (2),
sustainable food production will depend on the judicious
use of water resources to meet future food demands. Water
productivity in terms of output per unit of food per cubic
meter of water needs to be increased both in irrigated and
rain-fed agriculture. In short, there is need for more crop
per drop.
As urbanization, industrialization, and other uses
increase, the availability of water for agriculture is likely
to be reduced. By 2030, it is estimated (3) that irrigated
areas will have expanded by 23%. However, decreasing
water availability will allow an increase of only 12%
more water for agriculture. This would necessitate an
increase in water productivity by increasing water use
efficiency and would require improving irrigation efficiency
from the present 43% to 50% by 2030. This would in
consequence require reducing irrigation water losses by
introducing appropriate technologies and improved water
management and cultural practices.
Water management involves various important aspects,
in which there is the necessity and large scope for improve-
ment. One of the important aspects is the field application
of irrigation water. In surface application, common effi-
ciencies range from 50–60%, whereas in drip irrigation
it ranges around 90%. Although a microirrigation system
appears initially costly and not necessarily applicable to
similar land conditions as surface irrigation, it is defi-
nitely water saving and improves the yield and quality of
crops. This article discusses microirrigation and its nature,
extent, and future scope.
Historical Development
Earlier experiments on drip irrigation were done in
Germany around 1860 using clay pipes having open
joints, for both irrigation and drainage. In the United
States, some work was done at Colorado State University
in 1913. With the introduction of perforated plastic
pipes in Germany, Canada, and the United States for
subirrigation, this concept received quite an impetus. In
these efforts, the work of Symcha Blass, an Israeli engineer
is worth mentioning; he observed in 1940 that a big tree
near a leaking pipe showed more vigorous growth than
other trees in the area. From this observation, he arrived
at the concept of irrigation, wherein water was applied
in small quantity, virtually drop by drop. The earlier
drip irrigation system consisted of plastic capillary tubes
attached to large pipes. The experiments around 1960
at Arava in Israel showed very good results. With the
development of new plastic components after World War
II, great headway was made in manufacturing plastic
pipes and other accessories. Drip system components
were gradually properly established and sold in different
countries. Per one survey, this system has been adopted
in 35 countries and is installed in an area of 1,784,846 ha.
Considering the rapid growth of microirrigation, six
International Congresses have been organized so far: the
first in Israel in 1971, the second in California in 1974,
the third in California in 1985, the fourth in Australia in
1988, the fifth in Florida in 1995, and the sixth in South
Africa in 2000.
MICROIRRIGATION: DEFINITION AND TYPES
According to Nakayama and Bucks (4), trickle irrigation is
the slow application of water on, above, or beneath the soil
by surface trickle, subsurface trickle, bubbler, mechanical
move spray, or pulse systems.
In this method, water is applied by low pressure pipes
at a low rate near the root zone, in small quantities
at frequent intervals. The water is applied as discrete
or continuous drops, small streams or sprays, through
emitters placed near the plants. It is also known as
localized irrigation, drip irrigation, trickle irrigation, daily
flow irrigation, and microirrigation.
Microirrigation is presently the most accepted name
that includes all variations such as surface trickle,
subsurface trickle, bubbler, mechanical move spray, and
pulse, which are briefly described below.
 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
Surface Trickle. In this system, the emitters and
laterals are placed on the soil surface. It is the
most common type and is also called drip irrigation.
It is used for widely spaced as well as row crops.
Discharge rates are lower than 12 L/h for single
outlet, point source emitters, and less than 12 L/h/m
for line source emitters.
Bubbler. In this method, water is applied to the soil
surface in a small stream or fountain with a
point source discharge much higher than surface
or subsurface trickle but less than 225 L/h. A small
basin is required for proper water distribution.
Spray. In this system, water is applied as a small spray,
fog, or mist Discharge is less than 175 L/h, and it is
used to irrigate trees or other widely spaced crops.
Mechanical Move. In this system, the concept of the
bubbler is extended to large spaced row crops.
including travelling trickle and drag or hose
reel systems.
Pulse. It has high discharge rate emitters, and thus
short application times. The discharge ranges are
4–10 times larger than surface trickle emitters. This
system has less clogging problems but needs inex-
pensive pulse emitters and automatic controllers.
Subsurface Drip Irrigation. This is another variation
of drip irrigation, also covered under the term
microirrigation. Its only difference from surface drip
irrigation is that it is installed below the soil surface.
In this system, water is applied slowly below the
surface through emitters whose discharges have the
same range as surface trickle emitters. This is useful
for small fruit or vegetable crops. Historically, it is the
oldest modern irrigation method used in the United
States. House (5) successfully used it for irrigating apples,
alfalfa, and cereal crops with porous subsurface laid pipes.
He, however, found it extremely costly and thus not
economically feasible for field crops. The advancement
in plastic materials, however has made it economically
feasible for several crops. Blass (6) applied drip irrigation
using laterals with buried drippers, but the practice
was discontinued because of emitter clogging and root
penetration. However, the practice was revived for the
following reasons: (1) The same system could be used for
several consecutive crops with minimum tillage. (2) The
labor requirement in removing and installing the tubing
with each crop was reduced. (3) There was less interference
with weeding, spraying, or harvesting of the crop with
buried laterals.
CROPS SUITED AND ADVANTAGES
Crop Suited
There are many crops for which drip irrigation has
been used. The major fruit crops for which it has been
used are citrus, deciduous, strawberry, grape, mango,
pomegranate, banana, peach, pear, apricot, papaya, and
coconut. Some of the important vegetables, cash crops, and
plantation crops, to which it has been applied are tomato,
621
potato, sugarcane, cotton, olive, coconut, watermelons,
cardamom, and ornamental trees.
Advantages
These are the main reasons that drip irrigation is used:
1. It provides a high degree of control for water
application. Using such control, it is possible to
attain much higher efficiencies of the order of
90% compared to sprinkler irrigation (60–80%) and
surface irrigation (50–60%). Thus, it provides high
water saving and high water use efficiency compared
to other methods of water application.
2. It supplies water at a rate sufficient to satisfy
evaporative demand by maintaining high matric and
osmotic soil water potentials, which minimize water
and osmotic stresses. In conventional systems of
water application such as flood or sprinkler methods,
the fluctuations in soil matric and solute potentials
are comparatively large. The lesser fluctuation and
thus less stresses result in better plant growth, an
increase in yield, and better quality of fruits.
3. There is partial wetting of soil with drip irrigation.
Because of this, less water is lost through evapora-
tion. However, on a seasonal basis, there may not be
more water saving for this reason than in conven-
tional methods. But this helps in reducing weeds,
resulting in a lower cost of weed control. It is help-
ful in carrying out further cultivation operations,
such as spraying and harvesting, without damaging
soil structure.
4. The foliage remains dry, so there is less growth
and incidence of plants diseases, reducing the use of
pesticides and fungicides.
5. It permits using saline water. The increase in
salt concentration because of soil drying between
two irrigations is less in drip than in other
irrigation methods. Salts from the wetted portion
are frequently leached from the active root zone. Leaf
burn is avoided because there is no foliar application
in this method.
6. It can be well adapted to marginal soils, such as
soils with high permeability and low water holding
capacity, sands, leached tropical soils, and also for
steep land and slowly permeable soils.
7. It requires less agricultural chemicals such as
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Because their
application is according to precise plant needs, the
quantity required is less, leaching losses are less,
and use is more efficient. It is thus cost as well
as labor saving, and causes less nitrogen pollution
in groundwater.
8. It uses less energy compared to high head sprinklers.
9. It is very well adapted to greenhouses in water and
nutrient application without foliage wetting, such as
needed for flowers and potted plants. It is also useful
for water and fertilizer application in mulched crops
and with wind tunnels.
622 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION

Table 1. Yield Increase, Water Saving, and Payback Period

Investment, Payback, Water Yield
Sl.No. Crop $/(Rs.)a Years Saving, % Increase, %

1. Pomegranate 625/(30,000) 1 45 45
2. Grape 917/(44,000) >1 year 48 23
3. Sugarcane 989/(47,500) 1 56 33
4. Banana 979/(47,000) 1 49 52
5. Tomato 625/30,000 NA 39 50
6. Chili pepper NA 62 44
7 Sweet lime 61 50
8 Watermelon 40 88
9 Okra 40 16
10 Cabbage 60 2
11 Cotton 53 26
a
Rs. refers to Indian currency; 1$ = Rs48 (variable with time).

Advantages of Subsurface Drip
Although another variation of microirrigation, its advan-
tages need special mention. According to Phene et al. (7),
it has the following advantages compared to surface
drip: (1) There is a substantial increase in water use
efficiency(WUE). (2) It enables precise fertilization with
high frequency irrigation. There is negligible evapora-
tion and almost total elimination of deep percolation and
nitrate–nitrogen leaching. (3) There is long-term sustain-
ability of the system.
WATER SAVING AND YIELD INCREASE
The most important aspects of microirrigation are water
saving and increased yield compared to conventional
irrigation. The experience for a few crops grown in India,
as reported by Uriel (8) (slightly modified), are given
in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that there is a 40 to 60% saving of
water with drip irrigation over conventional irrigation.
This water can be diverted to increase the area under
irrigation or to other uses. Similarly, the yield increases
from 23 to 88%. For vegetables and closely spaced crops,
the investment is about $979 (Rs.47000)/ha, whereas
for trees, it is around $625 (Rs.30000)/ha. For bananas,
the payback is less than 1 year, whereas for fruits like
pomegranate, the payback is 1 year.
COMPONENTS AND SYSTEM DESIGN
Components
Emission Devices. This is the most important compo-
nent, for which sometimes the method of irrigation itself is
named. This component acts as energy dissipater, reducing
the inlet pressure head (0.5–1 atmosphere) to zero atmo-
spheres at the outlet. It is generally made of polypropylene.
Some types may be called orifice emitters, orifice-vortex
emitters, long path emitters, compensating long path emit-
ters, long path multiple outlet emitters, grove and flap
short path emitters, grove and disc short path emitters,
and twin wall emitters. The discharge rate of an emitter
is characterized by its mean at normal operating pressure
and the coefficient of manufacturing variation. Its opera-
tion varies in the range of 1–2 atmosphere. In orifice type
emitters, the pressure is dissipated through a small hole
0.4–0.6 mm. They are highly prone to clogging. In long
path emitters, the pressure is dissipated by flow through a
long narrow path. The simplest type is the microtube. The
diameters of microtubes vary from 0.6–1 mm. The energy
loss in long path emitters can be increased by creating a
tortuous long path in the form of a spiral or labyrinth.
Sometimes, the energy can be dissipated through perfora-
tions or small holes. Biwall or twin bore are such systems.
In these systems, there is a small tube or a supply cham-
ber operating at a high pressure and fitted with large,
widely placed orifices. For each inner orifice, there are
many outer orifices in the emission chamber. There are
several in-line systems with different designs conceived by
different manufacturers.
In-Line Drippers. In-line drippers are based on the long
path principle. They are molded plastic accessories, in
which the thread is a long narrow passage governing the
slow discharge of water. Some emitters are attached to
the lateral tubing and in others, the lateral tubing forms
the outer wall of the tubing fixed along with the line. They
may have discharges of 2–8 L/h at 1 atmosphere.
On-Line Drippers. These drippers are fixed on the
lateral by punching suitable holes in the pipe. They may be
classified as nonpressure compensating type or pressure
compensating type.
Simple Type with Laminar Flow. In this type, the
discharge is directly proportional to pressure. It has
a simple thread, labyrinth, zigzag path, or other
arrangement to dissipate energy.
Turbo Key Type. This is a blockage resistant and
pressure compensating type, made of stabilized polymers,
available in 2,4, and 8 L/h discharge.
Pressure Compensating Type. This type, provides uni-
form discharge between pressures of 0.3–3.5 atm. This
type dripper is provided with a high quality rubber
diaphragm to control pressure. It gives 2,3,4, and 8 L/h
 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
discharge at varying pressures and is suitable for slop-
ing topography.
Built-in Dripper Tube. In this type, the drippers are
welded to the inside of the tube during extrusion
of polyethylene pipes. They are provided with an
independent pressure compensating discharge mechanism
and wide water passage to prevent clogging.
Other Components
Lateral Pipes. These are pipes with diameters of
12–33 mm and wall thicknesses sufficient to withstand
pressures of 4–6 atmospheres, to which the emitters
are connected.
These pipes should be flexible, noncorrosive, resistant
to solar radiation, and able to withstand temperature
fluctuation. Normally, pipes are made of diameters
10,12,16, and 20 mm, 1–3 mm thick, and generally laid
above the ground. They are commonly manufactured from
low density polyethylene (LDPE) or linear low density
polyethylene (LLDPE). LLDPE provides better protection
from the ultraviolet rays of the sun.
Main and Submain Pipes. They are placed below the
ground and supply water to the laterals. They are made
from rigid PVC or high density polyethylene. The pipes
may be 65 mm or more in diameter and can withstand
pressures of 6 kg/cm2 . These pipes are laid underground
for long life. For submains, rigid PVC, HDPE, or LDPE
pipes are generally used; diameters are 32–75 mm and
can withstand pressures of 2.5 kg/cm2 . They are commonly
laid above ground.
Filters. This is an important component used to reduce
or minimize blocking or clogging of emitters. They are of
three types.
Media Filter. Required to remove organic matter such
as algae. It is made up of a circular tank filled with layers
of coarse sand and different sizes of gravel and valves for
flushing the assembly in case of clogging. It is available in
different sizes and capacities as required by the system.
Hydrocyclone Filter. Also known as a vortex sand
separator. When the irrigation water has more sand, it
is used as a prefilter to remove the sand before it enters
the drip system. It is generally followed by a screen filter.
Screen Filter. It is fitted in series with a gravel filter
to further remove impurities like fine sands, dust, etc.
from the water. It consists of a single or double perforated
cylinder placed in a plastic or metal container. Generally,
100–200 mesh screens are used in these filters. Screens
are specified by the diameter of the pipe, recommended
flow rate, total surface area of the filter, or by the cleaning
method. The head loss needs to be periodically measured,
and if it exceeds the permissible specified limits, it needs
to be cleaned.
Fertigation and Chemigation
The process of adding the fertilizer with irrigation water
is also known as fertigation. When other agrochemicals for
623
control of insects and pests are used along with fertilizers,
instead of fertigation it may be termed chemigation.
Fertilizer application through microirrigation not only
helps in providing fertilizer economy, it also minimizes
health concerns. However, the potential to apply other
chemicals is considered a great risk. Microirrigation
cannot be used for chemigation with chemicals such as
fungicides, herbicides, and growth regulators, that need to
be applied to plant foliage. Three methods commonly used
for fertigation consist of a bypass pressure tank, a venturi,
or direct injection system.
In a bypass system with the closing of the main valve, a
certain fractional quantity of flow is made to pass through
the fertilizer tank. This bypassed water, dissolving the
fertilizer, goes to the drip system. In the venturi type, a
suction head is created at the constriction which sucks
the fertilizer through the system. In the direct injection
type, pumps of piston or diaphragm type, operated by
system pressure inject fixed quantities of fertilizers into
the system.
Automation
This refers to operation of the system with minimum
manual intervention and is useful in large areas. This
may be done in three ways. The first method is time-
based. In this method, the time of operation is estimated
according to the volume of water required and the average
flow rate of water. The duration of irrigation required has
to be determined for each section. The duration for each
valve is fed into the controller along with system start
time, and the controller clock is set with the current day
and time. The clock actuates the starting time of the first
valve and simultaneously the pump. After the duration
of the first valve is over, the first valve is closed, or the
controller switches to the next valve. The second method
is volume-based. In this system, the preset amount of
water can be applied in the field by using automatic
control metering valves. Automation using a volume-based
system is of two types. In one type, the valve with pulse
output provides one pulse after completing one dial of
the valve. The controller accepts the pulse input and
counts the volume per pulse. The volume required in a
segment, can be programmed in the controller. In the
second type, the valves are placed near each segment, and
no controller is required. The valves are interconnected in
series through a control tube. During sequential operation,
only one valve remains open. The third system is real-time
feedback based on the demand of the plant. The plant itself
determines the degree of irrigation required. Sensors such
as tensiometers, relative humidity sensors, rain sensors,
and temperature sensors control irrigation scheduling.
Conventional scheduling is based on refill and full point.
A real-time system controls and holds soil moisture near
a constant value.
System Design
Collection of General Information. This requires col-
lection of basic data including information about water
source; topography; crops to be grown; general nature of
624 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
soil and its characteristics such as texture, depth, infil-
tration etc.; climate; and rainfall. Such information is
necessary for irrigation scheduling.
Field Layout. Depending on the type and location of the
source, size, geometric layout, and topographical features,
the planning is done. A contour map is helpful, but if the
highest point, lowest points, ridge line, and drainage lines
can be located, the layout of the system and the lengths of
mains and laterals are decided.
Crop Water Requirement. The peak irrigation require-
ment (PIR) expressed in L/day/plant, may be estimated
from the following relationship:
PIR = E∗ pan × A × Kp × Kc × Kr × Ea + Lr − R
where
E∗ pan = (mm/day) is the average maximum pan
evaporation;
A = total area allocated to each plant, m2 ;
Kp = the pan factor (Eto = Kp .Epan is reference crop
evapotranspiration; Kp is less than 1 and
may be taken as 0.8);
Kc = crop coefficient, selected for a given crop, growth
stage and climatic conditions and has to be
experimentally determined or adopted from
available information;
Kr = a reduction factor, based on crop ground coverage,
also known as the canopy factor varies from 0–1,
and for a canopy occupying full Kr , is equal to 1;
Ea = overall application efficiency (Ea = ks .ku , ks is a
coefficient, whose value is less than 1 and takes care
of deep percolation and other losses, ku takes
care of application uniformity smaller than 1),
Lr = extra amount of water needed for leaching, taken
as 0, where there is no salinity and no leaching
problem;
R = rainfall taken as 0, where in an arid region,
a crop is to be grown only with irrigation.
For many maturing crops with good water holding
capacity, different factors may be taken as 1, and a rapid
estimate may be made using the relationship,
PIR = 0.8Epan × A × Ea
Monthly Water Requirement. As per INCID (9), a
simplified estimate may be obtained as
V = Ep × Kc × Kp × A × N(liters)
where Ep is the mean monthly pan evaporation (mm/day),
A is the area to be irrigated m2 , and N is the number of
days in a month.
Net volume to be applied may be written as
Vn = V − Re
where Re is the effective rainfall (mm).
The operating hours of a system for a month may be
obtained as
Vn × Wp
T=
(Drippers/plant) × plant numbers
×dripper discharge
where Wp is the wetted area.
Operating hours per application may be written as
Ta = T/Nm (Nm is number of application/month)
System Design
Laterals may be designed by considering the flow of
each lateral (de) obtained by multiplying the discharge
of each dripper by the number of drippers per lateral. The
diameter of submains may be designed by considering the
flow of each submain line (ds), obtained by multiplying by
the number of laterals.
The design of a main line may be done by considering
the total flow of all the submains (dm), obtained by
multiplying (ds) by the number of laterals.
The design of diameters of laterals, submains, and
mains may be done by considering the pressure drop due
to the friction of each lateral, submain, and main using
the head loss relationship of Blassius or the William and
Hazen equation.
The pump horsepower may be determined from the
friction head losses of mains, submains, and laterals (Hf ),
the static head for the pump-well system (Hs ), and the
operating pressure head of the emitter (He ):
Total head H = Hf + Hs + He
Thus,
H × dm
HP =
75 × Mp × Mm
where Mp and Mm are the efficiencies of the motor and
the pump, and dm is the discharge of the main in liters
per second.
EXTENT OF MICROIRRIGATION
There has been a very fast rate of adopting and extending
microirrigation in different countries in the last 20 years,
and several surveys have been carried out to find
its coverage.
From the third international survey by ICID, reported
by Bucks (10), it was found that from an area of
412,760 ha in 1981, it increased to 1,082,631 ha in 1986,
and 1,768,987 ha in 1991. This was a 63% increase in
5 years and a 329% increase in 10 years. The major
users of microirrigation in decreasing order, according to a
survey in 1991, were the United States, Spain, Australia,
South Africa, and Israel. Other countries having sizable
microirrigation were Thailand, Columbia, Jordan, Brazil,
China, Cyprus, Portugal, Chinese Taipei, and Morocco.
The fourth survey has been in process through the
endeavor of Kulkarni of ICID. Preliminary feedback has
been reported from 1981–2000, 19 years, by Reinders (11)
 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION 625

Table 2. Microirrigation Area in a Few Countries Over 19 of sugarcane is in sandy soil which has the potential
Yearsa for microirrigation.
Country 1981, ha 1986, ha 1991, ha 2000, ha
Vegetable Crops
USA 185,000 392,000 606,000 1,050,000
India 20 0 55,000 260,000 Vegetable crops are grown in over 140000 ha in Florida,
Australia 20,050 58,738 147,011 258,000b most of which is irrigated. About 2100 ha of strawberries
Spain 0 112,500 160,000 230,000 grown in Florida are drip irrigated because of produc-
South Africa 44,000 102,250 144,000 220,000 tion benefits.
Israel 81,700 126,810 104,302 161,000 Per Chieng and Gulik (13), of 940,000 ha of land
France 22,000 0 50,953 140,000
under irrigation in Canada, about 4700 ha were under
Mexico 2,000 12,684 60,000 105,000∗
Egypt 0 68,450 68,450 104,000
microirrigation, and the trend is increasing. Most of the
Japan 0 1,400 57,098 100,000b large scale microirrigation systems were in the province
Italy 10,300 21,700 78,600 80,000 of British Columbia. In most of these areas, chemigation
Others 70,770 434,036 294,873 523,300 was being practiced, and the systems were used for tree
World 436,590 1,030,578 1,826,287 3,201,300 fruit, field vegetables, greenhouse, flowers, and vines
a
Drip Irrigation in some indigenous form has been
Reference 11.
b
Hectarage adjusted from 1991 figures according to the average percentage practiced in India for a long time. Perforated earthenware
increase of other countries, as per data obtained by Dr. Kulkarni of ICID. pipes have been used for quite some time in different
parts of the country such as Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
Similarly, perforated bamboo pipes and pitchers have
and is given in Table 2. From 1981–1986, a 136% increase been in use. In Meghalaya, they have used bamboo drip
took place and from 1986–1991, a 77% increase took place. irrigation systems for betel pepper and areca nut crops
From 1981–2000, 19 years, usage increased 633%. by using low flows from hill streams. Drip irrigation in
Although there has been a tremendous increase in the modern form was introduced in the early 1970s in India.
use of microirrigation, the total area under microirrigation Significant development has taken place in the 1980s. Per
continues to remain only 0.8% of the total irrigated area some estimates, from a small coverage of 1500 ha in 1985,
of the world (10). the area increased to 6000 ha in 1988, 66,000 ha in 1993,
Besides the ICID surveys, according to Uriel (8), there and 260,000 in 2000.
have been several other assessments of the extent of The adoption of drip irrigation has been maximum
microirrigation in different countries which are briefly in acute water scarce areas of Maharashtra state for
given below. commercial and horticultural crops such as coconut,
According to a survey, it was estimated that in the grapes, banana, fruit trees, sugarcane, and plantation
Mediterranean coastal plains in Palestine, about 70.5% crops. About 85% of the installed drip systems in India
of vegetables was irrigated by drip irrigation, 28% by has taken place in Maharashtra. The states of Karnataka,
sprinklers, and a negligible area by traditional methods. Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh have been
It was found that 87% of farmers in the Jordan Rift Valley gradually picking up.
can grow two crops with modern methods in comparison According to Jain (14) there were 0.38 mha of land
with 83% in the coastal region. In Jordan, mainly in the under microirrigation, making India the second largest
Jordan Rift Valley, 64% of farmers use drip irrigation. in the world next only to the United States which
In the mountainous area around Lake Titicaca between has 1.055 mha.
Peru and Bolivia, a combination has been made between
simple rural greenhouse and drip irrigation for growing Extent of Application to Different Crops and Trends
potatoes and vegetables. Potatoes grown in greenhouses
produced 350 kg/50 square meters an increase of 500% Per the survey, microirrigation has been applied differ-
in yield in comparison to traditional methods. In ently to different crops, according to Bucks (10). It has
Mauritius, about 33,000 small farmers cultivate about been applied most to tree crops, covering 41.5%. Among
25,000 ha of sugarcane. In several other countries like fruits, deciduous types constitute the second largest cov-
Nicaragua, southern Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Peru, erage having a share of 16.7%. Citrus fruits constitute the
Mozambique, and China, drip irrigation is being tried for third next highest, having a coverage of 13% of all the
vegetables and orchard crops. area covered. Olives/nuts are another crop having a share
According to Smajstrla et al. (12), about 20% of the of 5.1%. Among vines, it has been applied most to grapes
U.S. microirrigated fruit crops consist of Florida fruit having a share of 11.1%.
crops which are primarily citrus. About 358,000 ha area The other tree crops under major application of
in Florida is occupied by fruit crops most of which is microirrigation consist of avocado, mango, olive, nut
citrus. Microirrigation provides better freeze protection tree, and coconut. There has been quite an increase of
and faster growth of citrus trees. Over 11% of 1.9 mha of microirrigation in vines and vegetables which constitute
commercial agricultural crops is microirrigated, of which 26% of the area under microirrigation. Application of
94% is in fruit crops, primarily citrus. microirrigation was done for cash crops like sugarcane
Among field crops, microirrigation has been extended to in Hawaii on a large scale on about 42,000 ha in 1991.
sugarcane and tobacco; 90% of Florida sugarcane is grown Coconut occupied an area of 37,000 ha. Among vegetables,
in muck soils, where subirrigation is practiced. Only 10% it has a maximum coverage under field vegetables.
626 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
Greenhouses are expensive, so it is understandable that
the area covered under such a system would be less than
that of field crops. Microirrigation has been applied to a
large number of unspecified crops. The area under this
category in the 1991 survey was 21.5% of the total area
of 1.8 mha.
In the trend of component use, it was observed
that bubblers and microsprinklers were being installed
more for tree crops than individual drippers. Line
source applications were being used more than individual
drippers. Pressure compensating drippers were increasing
in use in some countries but were generally creating
problems after 2 to 5 years. Fertigation was increasing
in many countries such as the United States, Spain,
Australia, Israel, South Africa, and Mexico. In other
countries, it was still in the initial stages. Emitter clogging
was generally caused by sediments, precipitated salts, or
bacterial slimes. These problems were gradually solved
with bubblers and microsprinklers as well as by better
fabrication. To control clogging, generally, acids and
chlorine were applied. The application efficiencies ranged
from 60–90%.
The costs of installation in the third survey ranged
from US $ 2000 to US $ 7000 per ha. It was generally
found that line sources (drip tapes, etc.) used in vegetable
and field crops were more expensive than drippers or
microsprinklers used for tree crops. Systems with average
costs from $ 2000 to $ 4000 were economically and
efficiently operated for trees, vegetables, and field crops.
Extent of Subsurface Drip Irrigation
Although economical and highly efficient, the design
and laying of subsurface drip is more sophisticated and
complex, and its installation fairly soil and crop specific.
Thus, in spite of its being promising, its application is still
in its infancy. Per the ICID third survey, it had a coverage
of 54,000 ha in the United States, 2500 ha in China, 150 ha
in Israel, and 2184 ha in other countries, a global coverage
of 58,834 ha. According to Phene et al. (15) reporting
figures from the Irrigation Journal’s 1992, irrigation
survey out of a total of 690.2 kha of microirrigation
coverage in the United States about 76.6 kha or 11.1%
was under SDI. In California SDI had grown to 61.3 kha
in 1992. This constituted about 80% of all SDI in the
United States. The different crops to which it has been
applied were potato, tomato, strawberry, cantaloupe,
lettuce, cotton, grape, hops, apples, peach, almond, walnut,
turf, and ornamentals.
LIMITATIONS, RESEARCH TRENDS, SCOPE, AND
PROMOTION
Limitations
Emitter Clogging. This is one of the most important
problems in the use of microirrigation. This may occur due
to sand, rust, microorganisms or other impurities carried
by irrigation water or because of chemicals precipitating
in the flow system. Root penetration also reportedly causes
clogging, which occurs mostly in buried systems. Proper
filtration may remove suspended particles. Suspended
organic matter and algae, etc. can be removed by
media filters, whereas larger suspended materials can be
removed by centrifugal separators. Appropriate chemicals
can eliminate clogging due to precipitation of salts in
the system.
Mechanical Damage. This may be caused by rodents,
birds, animals, or careless use of implements. Chemicals
are now available, which if mixed with plastics, discourage
or prevent damage by rodents. With subsurface drip, there
is minimum cultivation, and damage due to handling or
implements can be avoided.
Salinity Hazard. With the use of brackish water for
irrigation, salts tend to accumulate at the wetting front.
The problems are caused in arid regions if irrigation
methods other than drip are used and salts cannot
be leached. The problem can be reduced by using
sprinkler or flood methods of irrigation to leach the salts
wherever feasible.
Lack of Microclimatic Control. This method cannot com-
monly provide frost protection as done by sprinklers, but a
variation of microirrigation, known as microsprinklering,
also provides quite effective frost protection.
Higher Costs. Compared to surface and sprinkler
irrigation systems, installation costs are higher. Thus, it is
feasible only for appropriate field crops and fruits, where
returns are cost-effective. In some developing countries, to
promote economy in using irrigation water, subsidies have
been given for its installation; that has given good results
in extending its adoption.
Lack of Awareness. This is a system requiring high
skill in design, installation, operation, and management;
it requires proper demonstration and training to extend
its use to farmers in developing countries.
Research Trends
The issues and type of research in different countries
vary according to need. However in the United States,
which has the largest area in microirrigation, per
Phene (16), research trends center around four areas:
(1) determination of water requirements and irrigation
scheduling, (2) nutrient management/fertigation methods
and water quality, (3) system design and uniformity,
and (4) expert systems and simulation models. The
area of water requirement is considered important
in view of the difficulty of accurate determination of
water requirements and irrigation scheduling. The efforts
related to this area were directed toward use of personal
computers for data acquisition and control systems and
electronic sensors for automation. Efforts were also
directed to using plant measurements for scheduling
irrigation and regional and local automatic scheduling,
measuring, and calculating crop evapotranspiration as
well as use of simulation models. Nutrient management
was considered important in view of high nitrate-
nitrogen pollution because of surface application and
the scope of its reduction through fertigation. Because of
 MICROIRRIGATION: AN APPROACH TO EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
improvements in materials hardware availability, quality,
and manufacturing uniformity, there is a good potential
for improvement in designing microirrigation systems and
developing microcomputer programs. Expert systems have
the ability of facilitating the transfer of knowledge from
researchers to users. The soil water–plant relationship is
a complex phenomenon, in which, expert systems can
play a useful role in irrigation selection, scheduling,
and management
Future Scope
It may be observed that the world food requirement
is likely to increase as population increases. On the
other hand, water availability for food production is
gradually shrinking. Water scarcity has become the
single biggest threat to food security, human health, and
natural ecosystems. The only way to match higher food
production with declining water resources seems to be
optimization of available water resources through efficient
water management Application of microirrigation has
demonstrated great savings in water and fertilizer and
also increased crop yield and improvement of the quality
of produce. Due to this, there has been a fast growth of this
technology, and the area has increased to more than double
in 5 years since 1981 and to more than 4 times in the next
5 years. Such a trend shows the great possibility of further
increase in the future. According to future projections, by
the year 2000, the area will increase to more than eight
times its coverage in 1981.
During its period of progress, its applicability has
been tried for several other fruit and field crops with
encouraging results. It has shown tremendous scope
for flowers and vegetables and use in greenhouses and
nurseries. Lots of good work has been done in landscaping,
and there is a good prospect for further expansion in
this area.
Success in the use of sewage as well as saline water and
poor and degraded soils has further enlarged its scope.
The experiments in Abu Dhabi of growing eucalyptus
and casuarinas through drip irrigation using waters of
salinity of 2000 mg/L and 12,000 mg/L, respectively, for
stabilising sand dunes, offers great hope of greening the
world’s deserts.
Subsurface drip has emerged as a new promising
technology, useful in further economizing water use and
reducting labor, and is likely to become commercialized in
the near future.
According to Uriel (8), good prospect has been observed
for further expansion of microirrigation in several
developing countries. In China, there is a plan for
water conservation in five provinces. There is also a
plan for improvement of on-farm irrigation in an area
of 2,50,000 ha with sprinkler, drip, and flood irrigation.
In the desert region of Nuberia in Egypt, drip irrigation
is expected to cover an area of 100,000 ha of vegetables
and fruits. In Nicaragua, a world relief organization has
established 100 model farms to introduce drip irrigation
for vegetables. In Argentina, 20 model farms for drip
irrigation have been developed for vegetables, flowers, and
orchards. In Peru, small areas were laid for drip irrigation
to grow asparagus and vine yards on 900 hectares.
627
In Turkey, a large scale project is in the process of
improving community irrigation of which 1200 ha is for
drip irrigation. In Mozambique, citrus orchards next
to a dam are planned to irrigate 210 ha. In India,
microirrigation has been applied in a number of states
such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil
Nadu. But there is still a large scope for its application
in other states. In the state of Andhra Pradesh, a large
project of microirrigation is on the anvil.
In developing countries, however, there may be a
necessity of providing subsidies in the initial stages and
carrying out training and demonstrations to improve
the awareness of technical staff and farmers in the
interest of economizing on water use and environmental
health. Besides increasing awareness, there is a great
need to increase the technical competence and skill of
technical people involved in installation and maintenance.
Development of a strong database and providing optimum
design, installation, and maintenance are great needs
in developing countries and would boost microirrigation
expansion a long way.
In the developed world, microirrigation offers hope to
economize, reduce, and alleviate the use of excess fertilizer
and the pesticide leaching hazard in surface irrigation and
subirrigation and pollution of groundwater. This would
help improve water quality and environmental health.
Strategies for Promotion
The future global shortage of water is very well recognized.
The agricultural sector continues to be the major user
of water. As the future share of water for other
uses increases, the share available for the agricultural
sector is likely to be further reduced. It is, therefore,
essential to stress the economic and efficient use of water
through microirrigation and other improved technologies
of efficient water application. The developed countries
have already adopted this technology to quite a large
extent, though there is still scope for further adoption
and extension of the more sophisticated systems such as
use of automation, SDI, etc. But it is more important for
the developing countries faced with increasing population
and the need for more food production. Some possible
approaches to meet such objectives are identified:
1. Coordinated efforts of scientists, engineers, re-
search institutions, and industry are needed to
develop appropriate technologies for field adoption
of microirrigation.
2. There is a necessity to create a database on
different aspects of microirrigation for specific
crops/cropping pattern in different agroclimatic
zones of a region. It is specially important to match
the water requirement of a crop/cropping pattern
to the economic viability of a system.
3. The manufacturing industry should establish a
research and development base for continued
improvement of the equipment to attain better
performance and economy.
4. Besides working on larger systems, the industry
and researchers should also develop technologies
628 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS
for smaller systems suited to farmers. Small
landholders have successfully used and managed
drip systems for small plots.
5. It is necessary to carry out large scale demonstra-
tions by industry, government, and nongovernment
institutions on different crops in different regions
to establish economic viability and promote aware-
ness among farmers/users.
6. For the application of fertilizers and pesticides
along with microirrigation, there is a necessity
of generating a database on the feasibility and
compatibility of such practices with a given soil
water/crop condition which is duly approved by a
recognized scientific body.
7. Before a microirrigation system is made available,
it is necessary to ensure that the different compo-
nents are manufactured according to established or
adopted standards of a country, so that the mate-
rials and manufactured products give the desired
performance and life for the system.
8. Microirrigation, though providing efficient and
economic use of water and improving the yield
of crops, is comparatively an expensive irrigation
system specially suited to fruit plantation and
vegetables. Besides the technical feasibility of
production for a profitable return, it is also
necessary to look into infrastructural aspects,
such as postharvest technology, transport, and
marketing as well as pricing policy. Unless
the infrastructural aspect is taken care of and
transport and marketing are streamlined, fruits
and vegetables, being perishable products, cannot
be profitably disposed of, and this expensive system
cannot be sustained.
9. In many developing countries, liquid fertilizers are
not indigenous and are imported; they are not
affordable. Policy decisions may be necessary to
enable in-country manufacture.
10. The present cost of installation may prove high
for small and marginal farmers in developing
countries. It needs to be examined as a policy that
keeping in mind the global shortage of water, it may
be worthwhile to partly subsidize the installation
cost in the initial stages. Easy disbursement of
subsidies that avoid delays may be desirable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Gittinger, J.P. (1985). Economic Analysis of Agricultural
Projects. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 29–37.
2. Smith, M. (2000). Optimising Crop Production and Crop
Water Management Under Reduced Water Supply. Proc. 6th
Int. Microirrigation Congr., Cape Town, South Africa, p. 2.
3. FAO. (2000). Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030:Technical
Interim Report. Rome, Italy, p. 247.
4. Nakayama, F.S. and Bucks, D.A. (1986). Trickle Irrigation for
Crop Production. Elsevier Science, the Netherlands, p. 383.
5. House, E.B. (1920). Irrigation by Means of Underground
Porous Pipe. Colorado State Experiment Station Bull.
6. Blass, S. (1971). Drip irrigation. In: Drip (Trickle) and
Automated Irrigation in Israel. Proceedings of Expert panel
Vol. (1)10–28. Water Commissioners Office, Ministry of
Agriculture, Tel Aviv, Israel.
7. Phene, C.J., Davis, K.R., Hutmacher, R.B., and McCormick,
R.L. (1987). Advantages of subsurface irrigation for process-
ing tomatoes. Acta Horticulturae 200: 101–113.
8. Uriel, O.R. (2000). Technological Development of Micro
Irrigation and its Applications in Developing Countries. Proc.
6th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Cape Town, South Africa,
pp. 2–4.
9. INCID. (1994). Drip Irrigation in India: Status Report by
Indian National Committee of Irrigation and Drainage,
p. 175.
10. Bucks, D.A. (1993). Microirrigation worldwide usage report.
Proc. 15th ICID Congr. Irrigation Drainage, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 11–33.
11. Reinders, F.R. (2000). Micro irrigation: A world overview.
Proc. 6th Int. Micro irrigation Congr., Cape Town, South
Africa, p. 2.
12. Smajstrla, A.J., Boggess, W.G., Boman, B.J., Clark, G.A.,
Haman, D.Z., Knox, G.W., Locascio, S.J., Obreza, T.Z., Par-
sons, L.R., Rhodes, F.M., Yeager, T., and Zazueta, F.S.
(1985). Status and growth of microirrigation in Florida. Proc.
5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Orlando, FL, pp. 325–330.
13. Chieng, S. and van der Gulik, T. (1993). Microirrigation and
chemigation: The British Columbia (Canada) experience. The
workshop on micro irrigation worldwide. Proc. 15th ICID
Congr. Irrigation Drainage, The Hague, the Netherlands
Dec. 2, 1993, pp. 169–177.
14. Jain, R.B. (2000). Development of microirrigation in India.
Proc. Int. Conf. Micro and Sprinkler Irrigation, Organized
by Central Board of Irrigation and Power, Jalgaon, India,
pp. 116–124.
15. Phene, C.J., Hutmacher, R.B., and Ayars, J.E. (1993). Sub-
surface drip irrigation in the USA. Proc. Workshop Sprinkler
and Drip Irrig. Syst., Organized by Central Board of Irrigation
and Power, Dec 2–6, New Delhi, India, pp. 157–162.
16. Phene, C.J. (1995). Research trends in microirrigation. Proc.
5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., April 2–6, Orlando, FL,
pp. 6–24.
PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION
FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF
HYDROCARBONS AND METALS
T.C. MCINTYRE
(from Phytoremediation:
Transformation and Control of
Contaminants, Wiley 2003)
SUMMARY OF PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Information on plants and other organisms that have
the potential for phytoremediation of contaminants aids
in the planning and establishment of removal and
restoration projects for contaminated sites. Environment
Canada is compiling databases on plants, bacteria,
fungi, and other organisms that remediate petroleum
hydrocarbons and accumulate metals and metalloids.
The databases PHYTOPET (for PHYTOremediation of
 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS
PETroleum hydrocarbon contaminants) and PHYTOREM
(for PHYTOREmediation of Metals) are user-friendly,
searchable, and summarize all the known literature.
Environment Canada has also drafted a Protocol,
‘‘Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Protocol
for Metal Contaminants.’’ The program provides suppliers
of specified environmental technologies and services that
meet the required criteria, with the right to use the
licensed ETV verification mark.
PHYTOREMEDIATION APPLICATIONS
Phytoremediation has good potential as a flexible and
cost-effective means to clean up contaminated sites. Two
of the most important applications are the use of plants
and other organisms to degrade petroleum hydrocarbons
and accumulate metals and metalloids (hereafter the term
metals covers both). Plants and other organisms extract
and degrade contaminants using a variety of processes
such as:
1. Phytoextraction—the capability of terrestrial
plants, algae, and plant tissues to sequester
toxic elements, especially metals, by uptake
or biosorption. Contaminated organisms can be
harvested for disposal or extraction (biomining when
at commercial levels) (1–6).
2. Rhizofiltration—the use of plant roots to absorb and
sometimes precipitate contaminants from polluted
waters (e.g., 7).
3. Phytostabilization—the use tolerant plants to sta-
bilize contaminants by reducing bioavailability.
4. Phytodegradation—the use of plants and associated
microorganisms to degrade organic pollutants.
5. Phytovolatilization—the use of plants to volatilize
pollutants.
Information on useful phytoremediation species is
limited and scattered in the literature. Environment
Canada has organized information into two databases
called PHYTOPET and PHYTOREM. The PHYTOPET
database is a compilation and global inventory of
organisms, with a focus on plants, for phytoremediation
of petroleum hydrocarbons. PHYTOREM is a similar
database for metals and metalloids.
Plants and other organisms have a remarkable capacity
to accumulate contaminants, e.g., the common sunflower
(Helianthus annuus) (8), Indian mustard (Brassica juncea)
(9), alpine pennycress (Thlaspi caerulescens) (10,11), and
brake fern (Pteris vittata) (12). Some of the highest
accumulation of metals occurs in the New Caledonia
tree (Sebertia acuminata) (13) and the Australian
shrub (Hybanthus floribundus) [reported by Streit and
Stumm in 1993 (14) as first reported by Harborne in
1988 (15)]. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the
compilation of data for plants and other organisms that
degrade hydrocarbons, or accumulate, hyperaccumulate,
or tolerate metals.
629
PLANTS THAT TOLERATE AND SPUR DEGRADATION OF
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
The database PHYTOPET specializes in plant species that
spur the rhizodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in
terrestrial and aquatic environments, including wetlands.
The plants (both monocots and dicots), bacteria, protozoa,
and fungi covered by the database show potential for
phytoremediation of a wide range of hydrocarbons—from
crude oil to polyaromatic hydrocarbons, such as chrysene
and benzo(a)pyrene (Hutchinson et al. this book, Olson
et al. this book). In the database, special attention has
been paid to the Canadian plants from the oil-producing
regions in the Western Prairie and Boreal ecozones for
reclamation of oil-contaminated sites. The relationships
between plants, microorganisms, and other species that
can phytoremediate similar chemicals or mixtures of
contaminants (metals, pesticides, and hydrocarbons) have
also been considered.
The database uses many of the same fields as the PHY-
TOREM database for plants (exchanging information on
the metal elements for information on the hydrocarbons).
In addition, the database compiles information on plant-
associated microorganisms. The information includes con-
centrations of the contaminant before and after treatment,
length of treatment period, soil characteristics, age of
the plant when exposed to the contaminant, and require-
ments for phytoremediation. Data in PHYTOPET also
include tolerance to salinity and Western Canadian occur-
rence.
Many native grasses show promise to phytoremediate
hydrocarbons [e.g., Agropyron spp., gramas (Bouteloua
spp.), and buffalo grasses (Buchloe spp.)]. Poplar (Populus
spp.) trees also are potentially useful. Cultivated plants
with phytoremediation potential include carrot (Daucus
carota), red fescue (Festuca rubra), alfalfa (Medicago
sativa), and ryegrass (Lolium spp.).
PLANTS THAT ACCUMULATE METALS
Scope and Organization of the PHYTOREM Database
The global inventory of PHYTOREM covers both terres-
trial and aquatic plants and other organisms (such as
bryophytes, lichen, fungi, algae, and bacteria) that have
potential value for phytoremediation of metals. Species
included in the database have an ability or potential to
tolerate, accumulate, or hyperaccumulate specific metals,
or be useful as sorbents for metals.
An intensive literature search was conducted for
the database, for accumulation of or tolerance to
the 19 selected elements listed in Table 1. Reviews
on metal accumulation provided global data (16–23).
Although a large number of species are known to
grow over serpentine substrates, only those specifically
shown to be hyperaccumulators or to accumulate sub-
stantial levels of heavy metals are included in the
database.
The database contains information on organisms that
are both hyperaccumulators and accumulators (Table 2).
The term hyperaccumulator was originally coined for
630 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS

Table 1. Metals and Metalloids Scanned for the Development of the PHYTOREM Database
Aluminum (Al) Cobalt (Co) Mercury (Hg) Radium (Ra)
Arsenic (As) Copper (Cu) Molybdenum (Mo) Strontium (Sr)
Beryllium (Be) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Uranium (U)
Cadmium (Cd) Lead (Pb) Palladium (Pd) Zinc (Zn)
Cesium (Cs) Manganese (Mn) Platinum (Pt)

plants with greater than 1000 milligrams per kilogram (a)

(0.1 percent) nickel in dried aboveground tissues (34,35).
This definition has been broadened to other elements and
all parts of plants. Values for accumulation were based
on either literature, or a value of 100 or 200 milligrams
per kilogram of dry weight was assigned where none has
been specified.
Information in the database includes geographical
origin of the organisms and habitat characteristics;
taxonomy; environmental effects, health effects, and uses
of the species; cultivation practices; sources of material
or species studied; weedy or other significant relatives;
and mode of action (i.e., tolerance and accumulation).
See Table 3 for details of criteria and fields. The
database is worldwide in scope, but focuses on species
from Canada, the U.S., and high-altitude species from
warmer regions.
The database, compiled using Microsoft Access 97
software, allows for easy access by many database (b)
formats and programs and can be updated as needed.
The database consists of three organism and two
reference tables (Fig. 1a). The organism tables are
(1) vascular plants; (2) algae, lichens, fungi, and mosses;
and (3) bacteria. The main table of reference includes all
citations that relate to concentration levels of elements
accumulated or tolerated, and the second is a table of
general botanical and reference works consulted. The
database as designed can be searched by queries (Fig. 1b)
and includes three data entry forms (botany, metal,
and plant) and reporting formats for organisms and
reference records.
Data sets can be quickly retrieved by applying
appropriate search criteria, and viewed in tabular format.
An example of a data screen for a species retrieved through
the filtering process is given in Fig. 2.
The database has specific search criteria, some of which Figure 1. PHYTOREM database windows showing contents
are as follows: from the tables (a) and query (b) menus.

1. To access the elements radium and uranium, use

the codes Rd and Ur respectively. Searches for
accumulators or hyperaccumulators, however, use
commonly used short forms for these elements. For
example, the character code RaA will bring up
accumulation data for radium.
2. To retrieve all records of species accumulating (A),
hyperaccumulating (H), tolerating (T), or precipitat-
ing (P) an element, use the symbol for the element
surrounded by asterisk in the elem action field, e.g.,
‘‘*Pb*’’ as the query or filter criterion. To retrieve
species accumulating or hyperaccumulating a par-
ticular element, the search criterion should be a
combination of the element and the desired accu-
mulation code, e.g., ‘‘*PbH*’’ for lead hyperaccumu-
lators.
3. There is no separate field to distinguish coniferous
species; however, species can be retrieved by using
the family Pinaceae or by retrieving all records with a
growth form of TR for tree.
4. Species are reported as rhizofiltration agents for
heavy metals. Studies dealing with nutrient culture
experiments, although not aimed at identifying such
agents, have been recorded with a Y for ‘‘yes’’ in the
field biofiltr use, because of the potential for such use.
Table 2. Values and Sources for Hyperaccumulation and Accumulation Criteria for Inclusion in the
PHYTOREM Database
Species with
Accumulation Highest Recorded
Hyperaccumulation Plants, Where criteria Value {origin}
Criteria (Milligrams Appropriate, Which (Milligrams per Number of [Value (Milligrams
per Kilogram of Were the Basis of References Kilogram of Records in Per Kilogram of
Element Dry Weight) Criteria for Data Dry Weight) the Database Dry Weight)]

Al 1000 Barley (Hordeum 24 100 25 Hairy goldenrod (Solidago

vulgare), horse bean hispida) {Canada} [6820]
(Vicia faba)
As 1000 25 100 4 Colonial bent
(Agrostis tenuis =
Agrostis capillaris)
{cultivation} [2000]
Cd 100 2 10 37 Eel grass (Vallisneria
spiralis) {India} [6242]
Co 1000 17 100 27 Haumaniastrum robertii
{Africa} [10,200]
Cr 1000 General review 17 100 35 Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
{cultivation} [7700]
Dicoma niccolifera, 26,27
Sutera fodina
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) 28
Smooth Water hyssop 29
(Bacopa monnieri)
(aquatic species)
Azolla spp. 30
Duckweed (Spirodela 31
polyrhiza), kariba weed
(Salvinia molesta)
Water lettuce (Pistia 32
stratiotes)
Cs ? ? 1 Sunflower (Helianthus
annuus) {cultivation} [high
absorption rate]
Cu 1000 17 100 67 Creosote bush (Larrea
tridentata) {U.S.} [23,700
biosorption]
Hg 1000 16,17 100 35 Water lettuce (Pistia
stratiotes) {pantropical}
[1100]
Mn 10,000 33 200 28 Macademia neurophylla
{New Caledonia} [51,800]
Mo 1500 Alpine pennycress ? 1 Alpine pennycrest (Thlaspi
(Thlaspi caerulescens) caerulescens) {Europe}
[1500–1800]
Ni 1000 34 100 372 Psychotria douarrei {New
Caledonia} [47,500]
35 Shrub violet (Hybanthus
floribundus) {Australia}
[2% total ash content]
Pb 1000 17 200 79 Indian mustard (Brassica
juncea) {cultivation}
[26,200]
Sr ? ? 1 Sunflower (Helianthus
annuus) {cultivation} [high
absorption Rate]
Ur ? ? 3 Sunflower (Helianthus
annuus) {cultivation} [>
15,000]
Zn 10,000 17 500 48 Alpine pennycrest (Thlaspi
caerulescens) {Europe}
[52,000]

? indicates that criteria have not been defined for hyperaccumulation or accumulation of these elements.
Note: No reports were found for accumulation of beryllium, palladium, platinum, and radium.

631
 Table 3. Fields, Description, and Access for PHYTOREM Database
Name Description [and explanatory comments] Plants Bacteria Algae Access
√ √ √
Entry− seq Automatic counter field to record sequence of data entry
[allows multiple records taken from a single summary
document to be grouped together for purposes of
review and data management]
√ √ √
Type− org Vascular plant = VP, bacteria = BA, algae = AG,
lichens = LI, fungi = FU, and bryophytes = BR [field
allows tables of different organisms to be combined
and provides the ability to distinguish records by type
of organism]
√
Growth− form For plants only: fern = FE, graminoid = GR, herb = HE,
shrub = SH, succulent = SU, vine = V, and tree = T
√ √ √ √
Sci− name Complete scientific name with authorities
√ √
Synonym Common synonym
√ √ √
Com− name Common English name(s)
√ √ √
Cv− strain Cultivar or strain name, or code; also transgenic variants
√ √ √
Family Taxonomic category: family
√ √ √
Order Taxonomic category: order
√ √ √
Subclass Taxonomic category: subclass
√ √ √
Class Taxonomic category: class
√
Duration For plants only: A(nnual), B(iennial), A/B, P(erennial),
A/P, and B/P
√ √ √ √
Origin Country or region of origin of plants on which report(s) is
based [Canadian and U.S. species or those of other
continents or countries can be sorted]
√
World− range World range of the species
√ √ √
Primary− habitat T = terrestrial, A = aquatic, T/A = terrestrial and
aquatic [provides the ability to distinguish between
terrestrial, aquatic, marsh, and wetland species (T/A)]
√
Hab− descr Habitat description [allows for sorting to distinguish
plants from serpentine soils and to distinguish
cultivated species (crop plants)]
√
Namer− occ North American occurrence: N(ative); E(xotic); X (not
present); ? (status unknown) [allows North American
species to be categorized]
√
Namer− spp Indication of whether other species in the genus are
present in North America
√
Sig− relatives Other species of significance in the genus
√ √ √
Cult− wild For plants: crop plant = C, horticultural species = H,
wild = W.
For algae and other: cultured = C or wild = W
√ √
Cult− info Propagation and/or test studies, or experimental
conditions
√ √ √
Cult− source Source of cultivated material as indicated in publication
√
Impact− attributes UN = unknown, WD = weed, NX = noxious properties,
HY = hybridizes, and PH = disease and insect pest
host
√
Impact− description Documentation of potential impact [information on
invasive potential of an exotic weed]
√
Uses General uses of plant and citations [medicinal or edible]
√ √
Bio− notes For plants: notes on such topics as pollination and
dispersal mechanism.
For bacteria: notes on important and interesting aspects
of biology.
√ √ √
Gen− notes For plants and others: toxicity of metal to the plant or
other organisms and other pertinent information and
citations.
For bacteria: general notes on procedures of the study or
results and citations.
√ √ √ √
Elem− conc− ref Citation and concentration of elements with organ of
storage
√ √ √
Elem− form− ref Element form if specifically indicated [e.g., Cu(II)]
√ √ √
Elem− chel− ref Element, chelate used and citation

632
 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS 633

Table 3. (Continued)
Name Description [and explanatory comments] Plants Bacteria Algae Access
√ √ √ √
Elem− action Hyperaccumulate = H, accumulate = A, tolerate = T,
rhizosphere concentration = R, and precipitate = P
[e.g., PbH is lead hyperaccumulation]
√ √
Storage− sites For plants: sites where element concentrations were
measured [e.g., root, shoot, or leaf].
For bacteria: sites where element measured [e.g., cell
wall].
√ √ √
Biofiltr− use Use for biofiltration: yes (Y) or no (N) [used to
distinguish species useful for such a function as
indicated in the publication]
√ √ √
Biofiltr− ref References to the biofiltration publications [generally
the same as the primary reference]
√ √
Tolerance− info Information on conditions under which tolerance
occurs
√ √ √ √
Summary− ref Reference to summary papers where several to many
species are listed
√ √ √ √
Primary− ref Primary literature reference [obtained from summary
reference if summary document was used]

interesting possibilities for phytoremediation, including

several commonly cultivated species such as sunflower
(Helianthus annuus) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa).

Data Update Recommendations

Figure 2. Example of a plant report form from a search of the
PHYTOREM database.
Updates that could be considered include (1) information
from a more extensive literature search, (2) fields for
data on storage sites (e.g., roots), (3) mechanisms of
tolerance or accumulation of metals by plants, (4) species
that remediate radionuclides, (5) plants that remediate
organic and other inorganic compounds and stabilize
contaminated sites, and (6) expansion of data for algae,
in particular those with a high absorptive capacity. In
addition, the database could also provide pictures of plants
and sites.
INORGANIC PHYTOREMEDIATION VERIFICATION
PROTOCOL

Summary of the Database Contents Environment Canada is formulating a protocol to establish

The database provides an extensive, though preliminary,
collection of records on phytoremediation potential. At
present, the database contains records of 775 species
spread over 76 families, 39 orders, 9 subclasses, and 2
classes (dicots and monocots). Data come from 39 countries
of origin (based on names used in the publications).
The greatest proportion (465) of species recorded in the
plant table accumulate, hyperaccumulate, or tolerate a
single metal of the 19 elements surveyed. Some species
take up two elements (66) or three (25), with a balance of
15 species capable of accumulating four or more elements.
Table 4 summarizes the species in the latter category with
elements and degree of accumulation.
The highest number of records (260) was found
for nickel followed by lead and copper (Fig. 3). No
records were found of species accumulating beryllium,
palladium, platinum, or radium. Species with the highest
concentration of the elements recorded in the database
(listed in the right-hand column of Table 2) provide some
the limits of applicability for the phytoremediation of met-
als and metalloids in contaminated soil and water that will
aid economic adoption and sustainable use. The pollutants
(no organic contaminants to this point) are arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mer-
cury (Hg), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), and zinc
(Zn). Use of the verification protocol will allow the use of a
Canadian Environmental Technology Verification symbol
in remediation products. The applicant will be required
to establish that a particular application has been tested
(and under what conditions) (e.g., proof of principle at
the bench, greenhouse, plot, or full-scale testing). Only
applications that involve phytoextraction, rhizofiltration,
phytovolatilization, phytostabilization, and combinations
of these physiological processes will be certified initially.
All phytoremediation applications (or technologies) will be
evaluated based on the following criteria and information:
1. Total amount, concentration, and speciation of ele-
ments in contaminated soil, rhizosphere soil water,
 260

240

220

200

180

Number of species
160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Al As Be Cd Co Cr Cs Cu Hg Mn Mo Ni Pb Pd Pt Ra Sr Ur Zn
Figure 3. Number of species records for the 19 elements
scanned. Metalic elements

Table 4. Plants Capable of Accumulating Four or More Metals

Scientific Name Common Name Origin and Characteristics Elements and Degree of Accumulationa

Azolla filiculoides Water fern Africa, floating CuA, NiA, PbA, and MnA
Bacopa monnieri Water hyssop India, emergent species HgA, CuH, CrH, PbA, and
CdH
Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth Pantropical/subtropical, CdH, CrA, ZnA, HgH, PbH,
troublesome weed and CuA
Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla Southern Asia but introduced CdH, CrA, HgH, and PbH
and spreading as a
troublesome weed in the
warmer states of the USA
Lemna minor Duckweed Native to North America and PbH, CdH, CuH, and ZnA
widespread
Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce Pantropical and native to CuT, CdT, HgH, and CrH
southern U.S. but an aquatic
weed
Salvinia molesta Water fern India CrH, NiH, PbH, and ZnA
Spirodela polyrhiza Giant duckweed Native to North America CdH, NiH, CrH, PbH, and
ZnA
Vallisneria americana Tape grass Native to Europe and North CuH, CdH, CrA, and PbH
Africa but widely cultivated in
the aquarium trade
Brassica juncea Indian mustard Cultivated PbH, PbP, ZnH, NiH, CuH,
CrA, CdA, and UrA
Helianthus annuus Sunflower Cultivated PbH, UrH, SrH, CsH, CrA,
CdA, CuA, MnA, NiA, and
ZnA
Agrostis castellana Bent grass Portugal AsH, PbA, ZnA, MnA, and
AlA
Thlaspi caerulescens Alpine pennycress Europe ZnH, CdH, CoH, CuH, NiH,
PbH, and CrA
Athyrium yokoscense Fern Japan CuH, CdA, ZnH, and PbH
a
H: hyperaccumulator; A: accumulator; P: precipitator; and T: tolerant.

634
 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS
water below the root zone, groundwater, wastewa-
ter, roots, shoots, and air (where phytovolatilization
is a factor) during and after treatment
2. Amount and timing of supplements added to
treated soils and waters as related to mobilization
or immobilization of contaminants, including co-
contaminants, and expected effects
3. Seepage or infiltration volumes from treatment
wetlands or soil plots and concentrations of
contaminants and by-products for the range of
expected moisture conditions
4. Range of meteorological conditions for effective
phytoremediation application including, but not
limited to, seasonal precipitation, air tempera-
tures, humidity, wind speed and direction, and
solar radiation
5. Time required to achieve cleanup or risk-reduction
standards for various levels of initial contamination
in soil or water, plants selected, soil or sediment
conditions, and weather
6. Soil, sediment, or water quality during and after the
treatment, including texture, mineralogy, moisture
content, cation-exchange capacity for soils, organic
carbon and nutrient content, pH, and redox
potential for all media
7. List of plants and description of communities and
any rooting depth, growing habits, and foliage
requirements for effective cleanup
8. Unusual ecological conditions to avoid including
endangered and threatened plants and wildlife,
weeds, invasive species, bioaccumulation (in the
absence of netting, fencing, motion detectors, or
alarms), and wetland changes (e.g., drying up of
seepage wetlands)
9. Risk-reduction or cleanup levels achieved in soil,
groundwater, and air for different land uses
10. Residual management options (e.g., land filling
in hazardous waste landfills, composting, and
pyrolysis) and any risks during handling, transport,
and disposal of residuals
11. Closure plans and options for vegetative cover
These criteria will be focused on specific issues
for terrestrial and aquatic remediation. Criteria and
information requirements will be weighted, depending on
the application. This protocol is different from that used in
the U.S. (36,37); however, the differences are expected
to diminish over time with continued collaborative
projects between Environment Canada and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
CURRENT AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS
Plant-based remediation and restoration applications are
expected to receive increasing attention in Canada and
elsewhere as options for removal of the more recalcitrant
inorganic and organic constituents at contaminated sites.
These Environment Canada databases and protocol
could provide valuable assistance in the pre-selection of
635
organisms, help clarify the regulatory responsibilities of
proponents in securing necessary approvals prior to the
use of specific organisms, and provide valuable insight
into genetic materials to adapt or modify representative
Canadian plant species to the climatic circumstances
unique to specific sites. Future initiatives include
(1) database expansion to include one for radioactive
materials (PHYTORAD); (2) a Canadian network to
identify, store, protect, propagate, and possibly distribute
germplasm of candidate plant cultivars; (3) protocols that
outline responsible provisions; (4) methods to recover
inorganic contaminants from contaminated biomass; (5) a
complete overview of the regulatory issues inherent
in the use of plants as remediation and restoration
agents; (6) definition of bioavailability and the role of
plants in natural attenuation; and (7) establishment of
mechanisms to limit phytoremediation site access by
herbivores and omnivores.
Acknowledgments and Disclaimer. The author is
extremely grateful for the opportunity to realize the con-
ceptual development of PHYTOREM and PHYTOPET
databases through the funding of the Canadian Biotech-
nology Strategy and the Panel on Energy Research and
Development. Data were compiled and provided by Dr.
Erich Haber of National Botanical Services in Canada for
PHYTOREM and by Dr. J.J. Germida, Dr. R.E. Farrell,
and Dr. C.M. Frick of the University of Saskatchewan for
PHYTOPET. Environment Canada headquarter’s library
staff, Jean-François Belanger and Marie Jetten and the
Canadian Museum of Nature librarian Mireille Boudreau
were invaluable. Finally the author extends an incredible
debt of gratitude to Dr. Marcos Alvarez of Environment
Canada for his editorial support. Copies of the PHY-
TOREM and PHYTOPET databases are available on
CD-ROM from the author at terry.mcintyre@ec.gc.ca.
Disclaimer. Environment Canada does not endorse the
use of, nor does it attempt to determine the merits of
any specific technology or technology provider through
publication in this document, nor does Environment
Canada assume any liabilities with respect to the
use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
discussed in this document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Further, the views expressed in
the document remain solely those of the authors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Wehrheim, B. and Wettern, M. (1994). Biosorption of cad-
mium, copper and lead by isolated mother cell walls and
whole cells of Chlorella fusca. Appl. Microbio. Biotechnol. 41:
725–728.
2. Brown, S.L., Chaney, R.L., Angle, J.S., and Baker, A.J.M.
(1995). Zinc and cadmium uptake by hyperaccumulator
Thlaspi caerulescens and metal tolerant Silene vulgaris
grown on sludge-amended soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:
1581–1585.
3. Kim, Y.H., Yoo, Y.J., and Lee, H.Y. (1995). Characteristics of
lead adsorption. Biotechnol. Lett. 17: 345–350.
4. Wang, T.C., Weissman, J.C., Ramesh, G., Varadarajan, R.,
and Benemann, J.R. (1995). Bioremoval of toxic elements
636 PLANT AND MICROORGANISM SELECTION FOR PHYTOREMEDIATION OF HYDROCARBONS AND METALS
with aquatic plants and algae. In: Bioremediation of
Inorganics. R.E. Hinchee, J.L. Means, and D.R. Burris (Eds.).
Third International In Situ and On-Site Bioreclamation
Symposium. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio. Held in San
Diego, California, April 24–27, pp. 65–69.
5. Wilson, M.W. and Edyvean, R.G. (1995). Biosorption for
the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters.
In: Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 9. A. Bousher and
M. Chandra (Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International
Biodeterioration and Biodegradation Symposium. Leeds, UK,
Sept. 1993, pp. 47–51.
6. Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., Bibb, J., Tiemann, K.J., Gonza-
lez, J.H., and Arenas, J. (1996a). Adsorption of copper
ions from solution by heavy metal stressed Larrea
tridentata (creosote bush) biomass. In: Proceedings of
the HSRC/WERC Joint Conference on the Environment.
L.E. Erickson, D.L. Tillison, S.C. Grant, and J.P. McDonald
(Eds.). Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Sub-
stance Research Center, Kansas State University, Man-
hattan. Held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 21–23.
(http://www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/96proceed/gardeal.html).
7. Dushenkov, V., Kumar, N.P.B.A., Motto, H., and Raskin, I.
(1995). Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to remove heavy
metals from aqueous streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:
1239–1245.
8. Salt, D.E., Blaylock, M., Kumar, N.P.B.A., Dushenkov, V.,
Chet, B.D. Ensley, I., and Raskin, I. (1995). Phytoremedia-
tion: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the
environment using plants. Biotechnology 13: 468–474.
9. Watanabe, M.E. (1997). Phytoremediation on the brink of
commercialization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 182–186.
10. Baker, A.J.M., Reeves, R.D., and Hajar, A.S.M. (1994). Heavy
metal accumulation and tolerance in British populations of the
metallophyte Thlaspi caerulescens J. & C. Presl (Brassicaceae)
New Phytol. 127: 61–68.
11. Comis, D. (1995). Green remediation: using plants to clean
the soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. May–June: 184–187.
12. Ma, L.Q., Komar, K.M., and Tu, C. (2001). A fern that
accumulates arsenic. Nature 409: p. 579.
13. Brown, K.S. (1995). The green clean. BioScience 45: 579–582.
14. Streit, B. and Stumm, W. (1993). Chemical properties of
metals and the process of bioaccumulation in terrestrial
plants. In: Plants as Biomonitors: Indicators for Heavy
Metals in the Terrestrial Environment. B. Markert (Ed.). VCH
Publishing Group (Wiley-VCH Verlag), New York, pp. 31–62.
15. Harborne, J.B. (1988) Introduction to Ecological Biochem-
istry, 3rd Edn. Academic Press, London, 356 pp.
16. Atri, F.R. (1983). Schwermetalle und Wasserpflanzen. Gustav
Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
17. Baker, A.J.M. and Brooks, R.R. (1989). Terrestrial higher
plants which hyperaccumulate metallic elements—a review
of their distribution, ecology and phytochemistry. Biorecovery
1: 81–126.
18. Shaw, A.J. (Ed.). (1990). Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants:
Evolutionary Aspects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
19. Baker, A.J.M., Proctor, J., and Reeves, R.D. (1991). The
vegetation of ultramafic (serpentine) soils. In: Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Serpentine Ecology.
A.J.M. Baker, J. Proctor, and R.D. Reeves (Eds.). Intercept
Ltd., Andover, United Kingdom. Held at University of
California, Davis, June 19–22.
20. Roberts, B.A. and Proctor, J. (Eds.). (1992). The Ecology
of Areas with Serpentinized Rocks: a World View. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
21. Markert, B. (1993). Plants as Biomonitors: Indicators for
Heavy Metals in the Terrestrial Environment. VCH Publishing
Group (Wiley-VCH Verlag), New York.
22. Frankenberger, W.T., Jr. and Losi, M.E. (1995). Applications
of bioremediation in the cleanup of heavy metals and
metalloids. In: Bioremediation: Science and Applications.
H.D. Skipper and R.F. Turco (Eds.). Soil Science of America
Special Publication 43: 173–210.
23. Reeves, R.D., Baker, A.J.M., Borhidi, A., and Berazaı́n, R.
(1996). Nickel-accumulating plants from the ancient serpen-
tine soils of Cuba. New Phytol. 133: 217–224.
24. Grauer, U.E. and Horst, W.J. (1990). Effect of pH and
nitrogen source on aluminium tolerance of rye (Secale cereale
L.) and yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.). Plant Soil 127:
13–21.
25. Porter, E.K. and Peterson, P.J. (1975). Arsenic accumulation
by plants on mine waste (United Kingdom). Sci. Total
Environ. 4: 365–371.
26. Wild, H. (1974). Indigenous plants and chromium in Rhode-
sia. Kirkia 9: 233–241.
27. Brooks, R.R. and Yang, X.H. (1984). Elemental levels and
relationships in the endemic serpentine flora of the Great
Dyke, Zimbabwe, and their significance as controlling factors
for this flora. Taxon 33: 392–399.
28. Tiemann, K.J., Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., Gamez, G., Rodriquez,
O., and Sias, S. (1997). Study of the ligands involved in
metal binding to alfalfa biomass. Abstract 9. In: Abstracts
From The 1997 Conference on Hazardous Waste Research.
L.E. Erickson, M.M. Rankin, S.C. Grant, and J.P. McDonald
(Eds.). Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance
Research Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas. Held in Kansas City, Missouri, May 20–22,
(http://www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/97abstracts/doc9.html).
29. Gupta, M., Sinha, S., and Chandra, P. (1994). Uptake and
toxicity of metals in Scirpus lacustris L. and Bacopa monnieri
L. J. Environ. Sci. Health A29: 2185–2202.
30. Priel, A. (1995). Purification of industrial wastewater with
the Azolla fern. World Water Environ. Eng. 18: p. 13.
31. Srivastav, R.K., Gupta, S.K., Nigam, K.D.P., and Vasude-
van, P. (1994). Treatment of chromium and nickel in wastew-
ater by using aquatic plants. Water Res. 28: 1631–1638.
32. Sen, A.K., Mondal, N.G., and Mandal, S. (1987). Studies of
uptake and toxic effects of Cr (VI) on Pistia stratioides. Water
Sci. Technol. 19: 119–127.
33. Baker, A.J.M. and Walker, P.L. (1990). Ecophysiology of
metal uptake by tolerant plants. In: Heavy Metal Tolerance
in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. A.J. Shaw (Ed.). CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 155–177.
34. Brooks, R.R., Lee, J., Reeves, R.D., and Jaffré, T. (1977).
Detection of nickeliferous rocks by analysis of herbarium
specimens of indicator plants. J. Geochem. Explor. 7: 49–77.
35. Reeves, R.D. (1992). The hyperaccumulation of nickel by ser-
pentine plants. In: The Vegetation of Ultramafic (Serpentine)
Soils. A.J.M. Baker, J. Proctor, and R.D. Reeves (Eds.). Inter-
cept Ltd., Andover, U.K., pp. 253–277.
36. Remediation Technology Demonstration Forum (RTDF)
(2000). A database of existing phytoremediation field sites
(http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/siteprof/usersearch/
phyto list.cfm).
37. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC)
(2001). Phytotechnology technical and regulatory guid-
ance document. Phytotechnology Team. Washington, DC.
(http://www.itrcweb.org).

READING LIST
Azadpour, A. and Matthews, J.E. (1996). Remediation of metal-
contaminated sites using plants. Remediation Summer: 1–18.
Black, H. (1995). Absorbing possibilities: phytoremediation.
Environ. Health Persp. 103: 1106–1108.
Coghlan, A. (1997). Plants gobble up waste explosives. New
Scientist 1 February: p. 19.
Cunningham, S.D. and Berti, W.R. (1993). Remediation of
contaminated soils with green plants: an overview. In Vitro
Cell. Dev. Biol. 29P: 207–212.
Cunningham, S.D. and Lee, C.R. (1995). Phytoremediation: plant-
based remediation of contaminated soils and sediments. In:
Bioremediation: Science and Applications. H.D. Skipper and
R.F. Turco (Eds.). Soil Science of America Special Publication
43: 145–156.
Gardea-Torresdey, J.L., Tang, L., and Salvador, J.M. (1996).
Copper adsorption by esterified and unesterified fractions of
Sphagnum peat moss and its different humic substances. J.
Hazard. Mat. 48: 191–206.
Hartman, W.J., Jr. (1975). An evaluation of land treatment
of municipal wastewater and physical siting of facility
installations, U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
Kim, I. (1996). Harnessing the green clean. Chem. Eng. December:
39–41.
Moffat, A.S. (1995). Plants proving their worth in toxic metal
cleanup. Science 269: 302–303.
Parry, J. (1995). Plants absorb heavy metals: nature provides a
low-cost alternative to chemical extraction or immobilization.
Pollut. Eng. February: 40–41.
Rouhi, A.M. (1997). Plants to the rescue: crops with big appetites
for certain elements could be key players in soil cleanup. Chem.
Eng. News 75(2): 21–23.
NITRATE POLLUTION PREVENTION
BRANE MATICIC
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Groundwater and springwater are sources used for water
supply in many countries. Pollution of surface and
groundwater is caused mostly by the chemicals used in
industry, urban wastes, and agriculture. The pollution of
ground water by nitrates, as well as pollution of crops
that we consume, is one of the most serious environmental
concerns in most countries. A primary characteristic of
most agriculturally related groundwater pollution is that
it is often widely distributed (nonpoint source), whereas
localized animal farms, agrochemical and crop waste
disposal and storage, industry, and urban wastes may
lead to point pollution.
Using high amounts of nitrogen in fertilizers leads
to an increase of nitrate in plants, where a part of the
nitrate, not absorbed by plants, is washed away by rain
and pollutes groundwater. Drinking water and eating
vegetables with high amounts of nitrate and nitrite are
toxice specially for children and babies because it may
cause methemoglobinemia.
Acceptable daily intake (ADI) of nitrates is 0–5 mg/kg
of body weight and of nitrites is 0–0.2 mg/kg of body
weight. Children younger than 6 months are not allowed
to consume food that contains nitrites. (Standards
NITRATE POLLUTION PREVENTION 637
are set by common Committee FAO/SZO for nutrient
additives—JECFA.) The limit values, that are supposed
to ensure safe amounts of toxic elements for the majority of
people have only relative value. The well-known statement
by Paracelsus (1493–1541) is, ‘‘dosis sola facit venenum’’
(dose determines if a substance is toxic or not). All these
concepts fail for substances with irreversible, especially
carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. For carcinogenic and
mutagenic substances, it is evident from the viewpoint
of toxicology that prohibiting consumption is needed; any
amount of such substances consumed are supposed to be
a risk for human health.
According to the EU Nitrate Directive, the maximum
standard for nitrate in drinking water (according to the
value adopted by WHO) is 50 mg NO3 /L of water.
Bottled water is not supposed to contain any NO2 ,
whereas regular drinking water can contain up to 0.005
mg/L of NO2 -N under normal conditions and not more than
0.05 mg/L of NO2 -N in extraordinary circumstances.
When considering the possibility of pollution of ground-
water by nitrates due to surpluses of nitrogen in the
soil, it is essential to touch on the reasons for nitrate
surpluses. The quantity of nitrate in vegetables (freshly
edible crops) depends on the relative speed of two phys-
iological processes: absorption of nitrates by the roots of
plants and protein synthesis with consumption of nitrate
and its reduction to nitrite and to ammonium. If the speed
of absorption of nitrate is higher than the rate of protein
synthesis, nitrate automatically accumulates in plants.
On the other hand, if nitrate is transformed into protein
in step with its absorption, nitrate is present only in small
amounts. A disproportion between nitrogen absorption
and protein synthesis may be caused for two reasons which
sometimes are synergistic: (1) excessive quantities of nitro-
gen in the soil and (2) slowing down of protein synthesis.
The nitrate level in plants depends on the type of
soil, climate conditions (water in the soil), soil cultivation
practices, age of plants, and type of vegetable (cultivar
and variety). The nitrate level is always higher in young
plants. An excess of nitrate in the soil results above all
from chemical nitrogenous fertilizers particularly in the
form of nitrates, which are easily available to vegetables.
Several factors affect the intensity of protein synthesis;the
most important are the following: light, the state of the
foliage, the lack of minerals, particularly of trace elements,
and the use of certain pesticides. The feebler the light, the
richer plants are in nitrate (crops under glass, particularly
out of season, shady locations or overcrowding, short days,
and weak sunshine). If leaves are insufficiently developed
or damaged by parasitic attack, the nitrate content in
the roots of plants is raised. Lack of minerals slows
down protein synthesis which affects the accumulation
of nitrates. All factors that obstruct normal biochemical
processes in the soil or in plants can slow down protein
synthesis and therefore accelerate the accumulation of
nitrates for example, lack of water in the soil, excessive
water in the soil due to inadequate drainage, inadequately
cultivated soil, and use of herbicides.
It is not nitrate that is toxic but the compounds derived
from it, nitrites and nitrosamines. There are two reasons
that nitrate derived compounds are toxic:
638 NITRATE POLLUTION PREVENTION

1. Nitrates oxidize the ferrous ion of hemoglobin into nitrogen. Extreme amounts of water (minimal, when
ferric, methemoglobin is formed, and transport of plants are suffering from drought and maximal, when
oxygen is hindered (methemoglobinemia). plants have too much water for normal growth) increase
2. Nitrosamines are carcinogenic. the level of NO3 in vegetables.
It is obvious that fertilization with nitrogen increases
Nitrites and nitrosamines are formed during the the nitrate level in vegetables. For red beet, the maximal
microbiological process that takes place immediately increase in nitrate level, caused by fertilization with
after harvest whenever vegetables—medium rich in nitrogen, was 450%; for cabbage only 60%. The increase
nitrate—are stored under anaerobic conditions at ambient
temperature (sawerkrout, etc.). The very same processes
take place in cooked vegetable stored at ambient NO3,
mg/kg
temperature.
3000
Many years of experiments have been conducted at the
Agrohydrologic Research Station in Ljubljana, Slovenia 2700
(B. Maticic), on the impact of different water application 2400
levels in the soil and different levels of mineral nitrogen in
2100
the soil on the content of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium
on crop yield for many different vegetables. To prove the 1800
importance of sustainable nitrogen fertilization of crops 1500
and optimal treatment of crops with water (irrigation), we
1200
present some results of the interaction between nitrogen
application and water application for three different 900
vegetable crops: cabbage, red beet, and celery. The results 600
of ‘‘water–nitrogen fertilizer–yield’’ production functions 300
as well as ‘‘water–nitrogen fertilizer–nitrate’’ functions
for these three crops are presented in Figs. 1–3. 400
Fer
The increase of water application levels caused a tiliz 200 100
atio 0
decrease in NO3 content in vegetables until the water n, k
g/h 0 100 200 300 400 500
application reached a certain optimal level; a further a
Irrigation, mm water/vegetation
increase of water application also increased NO3 content. period
The influence of water application (irrigation) on NO3 Figure 2. Nitrate content in red beet due to different water and
content is greater than the influence of fertilization with different nitrogen treatments.

(a) (b)
NO3,
Yield, kg/ha mg/kg

50000
300

40000
200
50000
30000

40000 100
20000

30000 0
10000
−50
20000
0
400
30 liza
Fe

0 tio
rti

20 10000 200
Fe kgN

0
rtil /ha

10 100
n

iza

0
,k

0
0 100 150 200 250 300 0
tio
g

0 100 200 300 400 500

N2

n,
/h

Irrigation, mm water/vegetation
a

Irrigation, mm/growing
period period
Figure 1. The impact of interaction between water application (irrigation) and nitrogen
fertilization on crop yield (cabbage) and content of nitrate in the crop: (a) yield of cabbage
due to different water and nitrogen treatments; (b) nitrate in cabbage due to different water and
nitrogen treatments.

NO3,
mg/kg
1500
1300
1100
900
700
500
400
Fer 200
tiliz 100
atio 0 tural land as well as limitations for the use of the
n, k 0 100 200 300 400 500
gN
/ha
Irrigation, mm water/
vegetation period
Figure 3. Nitrate content in celery due to different water and
different nitrogen treatments.
in nitrogen doses from 0 to 400 kg N/ha caused an NO3
content more than fifteen times higher in celery leaves
and more than ten times higher in celery bulbs.
A significant reduction of nitrate and nitrite levels
in vegetables was observed with optimal water supply
and with small to medium doses of nitrogen fertilizers.
According to the results, the recommended allowable
water depletion from the soil for vegetable growers would
be to maintain soil water conditions within the range
of 20–30% of available water in the soil, and nitrogen
fertilizer should be applied in several small doses.
To identify nitrogen surpluses (that may influence
the pollution of groundwater and surface waters) due
to agricultural technology used in different countries,
it is advisable to demonstrate a ‘‘mineral (nitrogen)
balance’’ on regional and farm levels using a normative
approach. This method takes into account nitrogen
input from mineral fertilizers, animal wastes, and the
deposition from the atmosphere reduced by nitrogen
uptake by harvested crops and ammonia losses to the
atmosphere (30%).
It is also recommended to do thorough surface
and groundwater quality monitoring according to the
methodology recommended by international organizations
with as many sampling points as possible for basic
physical, chemical, and bacteriological analyses.
A mineral (nitrogen) balance provides information
closer to the nitrate problem. Ammonia losses during
storage do not directly affect groundwater. However,
deposition from the atmosphere must be taken into
account because it has an impact on nitrate concentration
in groundwater. The average nitrogen deposition from
the atmosphere is 20 kg nitrogen/ha (or 15.5 kg N/ha
according to RIVM, The Netherlands). The nitrogen
balance at the farm level is based on the so-called surface
balance approach. The input factors include minerals
provided by purchase of fertilizers and manure, minerals
from production of animal manure, and deposition from
the atmosphere. The output factor includes nitrogen
from harvested crops. The assessments are based on
elaborations by the Federal Agricultural Research Center,
Braunschweig, Germany.
NITRATE POLLUTION PREVENTION 639
To reduce mineral (nitrogen) surpluses in agriculture
and to meet the standards of nitrate and nitrite in
drinking water and crops, it is necessary to control
water and food quality in connection with nitrates
and nitrites and to exact certain regulations regarding
change in agriculture, especially animal excrement
management. These regulations should give different
norms for sustainable behavior in agricultural technology
according to ‘‘Nitrate Directives’’ and ‘‘Code of Good
Agricultural Practice.’’ The most important norms should
be as follows:
1. The highest quantity of manure allowed on agricul-
manure in specific soil conditions:
— The maximal allowed intensity of raising ani-
mals should be 3 LU/ha for cattle or 2 LU/ha for
pigs and poultry.
— Application of organic manure should not be
allowed during winter on frozen soil.
— Application of organic fertilizers should not be
allowed on soil saturated with water.
— Application of organic fertilizers should not be
allowed in temporarily flooded areas.
— Application of organic fertilizers should not be
allowed near streams (10 m away from the
stream) and in depressions where there is no
runoff of water.
— Applying liquid manure on bare soil should not
be allowed in the period from Nov. 15 till Feb. 15.
— Application of organic fertilizers on water aquifer
protected areas should be very restricted and
done only in agreement with local authorities
and regulations valid for those areas.
— In the vicinity of springwater and in under-
ground water pumping areas, wastewater should
not be drained to springwater or underground
water in any case.
2. The highest quantity of N, P2 O5 , and K2 O allowed
per hectare should be 170 kg N, 120 kg P2 O5 and
300 kg K2 O.
3. Animal wastes should be stored in suitably arranged
dung yards and cesspools so that there is no
danger of leaking through and pouring over
underground water.
4. The adjustment of farms to these regulations should
be done as follows:
— the adjustment of the number of animals (LU)
according to the area of land available on
the farm,
— possible rent of additional land according to
the contract, the construction of necessary dung
yards and cesspools for hard and liquid manure,
according to the restrictions.
Implementation of these regulations should be controlled
by strict agricultural inspection in each country.
In countries where groundwater is relatively deep
and drainage systems are supposed to drain ‘‘perched’’
water tables and to consider the hydraulics of water
640 NITRIFICATION

flow in the soil profile, drainage can prevent ground- From Agricultural Sources. (91/676/EEC). Official Journal of
water from pollution by minerals and pesticides that the European Communities, 31.
contaminate the upper layer of the soil. Polluted water 9. Water - Quality Survey, Unesco/WHO. (1978). Manual on
flows to open canals (collectors) and further to rivers. Water—Quality Monitoring. WHO, 1988.
In order not to pollute water in the rivers, it is an 10. Schleef, K.H. and Kleinhanß, W. (1994). Mineral Balances
idea (B.Maticic) to install phytoremediation lagoons at in Agriculture in the EU, Part I: The Regional Level.
the end of open canals (collectors) before water is dis- Braunschweig, Germany.
charged into surface water streams (rivers). This action
would undoubtedly protect the quality of groundwater
and water in rivers, and therefore act as an environmen- NITRIFICATION
tal measure.
DAVID D. TARKALSON
When the world is going through many changes
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
regarding exploitation of its natural resources and
North Platte, Nebraska
environmental protection, a new idea for efficient and
sustainable draining of soil is of great importance. It
provides the opportunity to obtain a common goal a
Nitrification is the biologically facilitated oxidation of
‘‘sustainable development.’’
ammonium (NH4 + ) to nitrate (NO3 − ). The process of
For many countries, where agriculture is a very
nitrification is performed by ammonium and nitrite
important part of the economy, efficient and sustainable
(NO2 − ) oxidizing bacteria found in soil and waters
water management of agricultural land is very important.
(Table 1). In soil and water, ammonium is supplied
In the process of the transition of our society, there
through decomposition of organic matter by microbes
is strong emphasis on sustainable development, and it
and/or anthropogenic or natural additions of inorganic
is believed that the field of agriculture is especially
nitrogen sources containing ammonia (NH3 ), urea, or
sensitive in this regard. That is why a big effort to
ammonium. Nitrification consists of two independent
overcome the mistakes of past development is being put
microbially facilitated reactions. In the first reaction,
forward to establish a whole new approach to agricultural
ammonium oxidizers oxidize ammonium to nitrite, and
planning and production with emphasis on the rational
in the second reaction, nitrite oxidizers oxidize nitrite to
use of natural resources and modernized use of drainage
nitrate.
and irrigation.
The purpose of nitrification (microbial facilitated
A determination exists to change old attitudes toward
conversion of ammonium to nitrate) is to provide nitrifying
agricultural areas as underdeveloped areas, used only
bacteria the energy they require for metabolism. The
for mass food production, regardless of impacts on the
nitrification reactions are represented in Fig. 1, and the
environment. We believe that by careful planning and
bacteria involved are listed in Table 1. There are two
protection of the fertile soil in agricultural areas and
different microbially mediated nitrification reactions.
forests as well as water resources, it is possible to achieve
living conditions which would be attractive to people to
remain on their land and continue farming traditions,
as well as to the others to enjoy the environment of the 2NH4+ + 3O2 2NO2− + 2H2O + 4H+
countryside. Ammonium oxidizers

2NO2− + O2 2NO3−
Nitrite oxidizers
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Figure 1. Nitrification reactions.
1. Soren, R. and Boie, S.F. (1994). National and EC Nitrate
Policies. Kobenhavn.
2. Matičič, B., Avbelj, L., Vrevc, S., and Jarc, A. (1995). Water
Table 1. Common Species of Nitrifiers and their Habitatsa
Pollution by Nitrate in Slovenia. DELO, March 19.
3. Matičič, B. and Avbelj, L. (1996). Water Pollution by Nitrate Bacterial Species Habitat
in Slovenia: Future Standards and Policy Instruments. ICID
Ammonium oxidizers
Proc.: 6th Drainage Workshop - DRAINAGE AND THE
Nitrosomonas europea Soil, water, sewage
ENVIRONMENT, TOPICS No. 4, Ljubljana.
Nitrosospira briensis Soil
4. Matičič, B. (1995). Water Pollution by Nitrate in Slovenia. Nitrosococcus oceanus Marine
Monograph. Nitrosococcus mobilis Marine
5. Matičič, B. (1995). Standards of Nitrate in Agriculture: The Nitrosococcus nitrosus Marine
Case of Slovenia. Monograph. Nitrosolobus multiformis Soil
6. Matičič, B. (2004). Drainage and Irrigation. Contribution for Nitrosovibrio tenuis Soil
Global Water Partnership Publication. Nitrite oxidizers
7. Brower, F.M. et al. (1994). Mineral Balances of the European Nitrococcus mobilis Marine
Union at Farm Level. Agricultural Economics Research Nitrobacter gracilis Marine
Institut, the Hague, the Netherlands. Nitrobacter winogradski Soil
Nitrobacter agilis Soil, water
8. The Council Directive of 12 December 1991 Concerning the
a
Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates Ref. 1.
 NITRIFICATION 641

Chemoautotrophic nitrification is the use of carbon These factors include pH, moisture, temperature, and
dioxide and carbonates as a carbon source for cell oxygen concentration.
construction and oxidation of inorganic molecules such as
NO3 − or NO2 − as an energy source. Chemoautotrophic pH
nitrification is carried out only by a select group
Soil and water pH influence the availability of many
of bacteria. Heterotrophic nitrification is the use of
essential nutrients such as calcium and phosphorus (3).
organic compounds for both a carbon and energy source.
Microbes require these nutrients for growth and devel-
Heterotrophic nitrification is executed by a wide variety
opment; therefore, pH ranges that promote adequate
of heterotrophic bacteria and fungi (2). Chemoautotrophic
availability of these nutrients are required for nitrifica-
nitrification is believed to be up to 1000 times faster
tion. Nitrification in soils is optimized at pH 8.5 but can
and is better understood than heterotrophic nitrification.
proceed in a pH range of 4.5 to 10 (3). Figure 3 illustrates
Chemoautotrophic nitrification dominates in neutral
the relationship between soil pH and nitrification. At low
to alkaline agricultural soils, whereas heterotrophic
pH levels, many essential nutrients are less available for
nitrification dominates in acid forest soils (2).
use by plants and microbes.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOILS AND WATERS Moisture

Nitrifying bacteria require water to live and function. In
Nitrification is a key component of the nitrogen cycle
soils, the optimum water content for nitrification is at field
(Fig. 2). The nitrogen cycle represents the fundamental
capacity (water remaining in soil after gravity has removed
transformations of nitrogen in the environment. In
excess water after a period of saturation). Research shows
agricultural soil systems, we strive to manage this
cycle better to increase crop production and minimize LIVE GRAPH
Click here to view
the negative impacts of nitrogen on the environment.
14
Maximum rate of NO3− accumulation,

Implementing management practices that will help

manage nitrogen in agricultural systems to protect surface
12
and groundwaters is an example. Nitrate, the end product
mg NO3-N/g soil/day

of the nitrification process, is highly soluble in water

10
and is not readily adsorbed to soil particles; therefore, if
nitrate is not used by plants or microbes as a nutrient,
8
it can move vertically through soils to groundwater and
in runoff to surface waters resulting in problems from
nutrient enrichment. Because nitrification is a microbially 6
mediated process, many management practices aimed at
reducing nitrate leaching focus on the nitrification process. 4

2
FACTORS INFLUENCING NITRIFICATION 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6
Soil pH
Assuming an adequate supply of ammonium and a Figure 3. Effect of soil pH prior to incubation on nitrate
sufficient population of nitrifying bacteria, there are accumulation in soil treated with 169 kg N as NH4 NO3 /ha and
several factors that affect nitrification in natural systems. incubated at 23 ◦ C for 30 days (4).

Fixation
N2O N2 Biomass N
Mineralization
Denitrification

Soil organic N
NO2−

NO2− NH3 (g)

NO3− NH4+
Volatilization
Nitrification Figure 2. Nitrogen cycle.
 Next Page

642 NITRIFICATION

that, as water content increases in soil from dry to in soils and water will directly influence the rates of
an optimum content, nitrification rates increase (Fig. 4). nitrification.
However, waterlogged conditions drastically decrease
oxygen content and thus decrease the rate of nitrification.
The water content at field capacity varies, depending on MANAGEMENT OF NITRIFICATION IN SOIL TO REDUCE
the soil physical properties such as texture and organic NITRATE LOSSES TO SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER
matter content.

Temperature Reducing nitrate losses in agricultural soils that receive

large nitrogen (ammonia and ammonium) input from
Generally, as temperature increases to a point so does fertilizers is important to maintain high quality water
the rate of nitrification (Fig. 5). Studies have shown that resources. Chemicals called nitrification inhibitors have
ammonium is converted to nitrite at temperatures from been developed that inhibit the nitrogen oxidative
0 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C and nitrite is converted to nitrate from processes of nitrifying bacteria when added to agricultural
0 ◦ C to 40 ◦ C. Rates of nitrification dramatically decrease soils concurrently with ammonium based fertilizers. In
above and below these ranges. Optimum temperatures for other words, nitrogen in the form of ammonium persists
nitrification are between 30 ◦ C and 35 ◦ C. in the soil for longer periods of time that allow for
increased plant use of the ammonium. Ammonium is
Oxygen Concentration adsorbed to soil particles; therefore, it does not readily
move with water like nitrate. Nitrification inhibitors
Figure 1 illustrates the need for oxygen in the nitrification
have a finite effective functionality in soil because soil
process. Diffusion rates and concentrations of oxygen
microbes degrade them over time. Studies have shown that
LIVE GRAPH nitrification suppression by the inhibitor dicyandiamide
Click here to view
can last 3 months, depending on the amount added with
5
fertilizer (3).
Management practices that use knowledge of the
Rate of NH4+ consumption,

4 factors that influence nitrifiers are common. For example,

No till most farmers apply their ammonium based nitrogen
mg N/kg soil/day

fertilizers late in the fall when soil temperatures have

3
declined to a point where nitrification is inhibited. If the
Conventional till farmer applies the fertilizer when soil temperatures are
2 sufficiently high, then the ammonium is nitrified to nitrate
and rainfall and/or snowmelt can leach the nitrate out of
the root zone to the groundwater before the next crop can
1
use the nitrogen.
Nitrification is a natural biological process involved
0 in the transformation and fate of nitrogen in the
10 15 20 25 30 35
environment. However, anthropogenic influences can
Soil moisture content, g/100 g soil
either accentuate or reduce nitrification rates and can
Figure 4. Nitrification rate of two tillage systems of a Maury silt have a large impact on water quality.
loam soil column related to soil moisture content (5).

LIVE GRAPH
Click here to view
BIBLIOGRAPHY
0.20
k = fraction of No mineralized per month

1. Tate, R.L. (1995). Soil Microbiology. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
0.15
2. Coyne, M.S. (1999). Soil microbiology. An Exploratory Ap-
proach. Delmar, Albany, NY.
3. Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D., and Havlin, J.L.
0.10
(1985). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Macmillan, New York.
4. Dancer, W.S., Peterson, L.A., and Chesters, G. (1973). Ammo-
nification and nitrification of N as influenced by soil pH
0.05 and previous N treatments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:
67–69.
5. Rice, C.W. and Smith, M.S. (1983). Nitrification of fertilizer
0.00 and mineralized ammonium in no-till and plowed soil. Soil Sci.
0 10 20 30 40 Soc. Am. J. 47: 1125–1129.
Temperature, °C 6. Stanford, G., Carter, J.N., Westermann, D.T., and Meisinge,
Figure 5. Fraction of N mineralized per month, k, in relation to J.J. (1977). Residual nitrate and mineralizable soil nitrogen in
temperature (k was estimated graphically for observed average relation to nitrogen uptake by irrigated sugarbeets. Agron. J.
monthly air temperatures) (6). 69: 303–308.