- Email: [email protected]
Effect of saline water on establishment of windbreak trees
Agricultural water management ELSEVIER
Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
Effect of saline water on establishment of windbreak trees Ghulam Hussain a'*, Mohammad Sadiq b, Yahya A. Nabulsi c, Otto J. Helweg d ~lnstitute of Natural Resources and Environment, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 6086, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia bWater Resources and Environment Division, Research Institute, King Fahad Universi~ of Petroleum and Minerals, P.O. Box 417, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia "Department of Soil and Water, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, KFU, P.O. Box 420, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia dDepartment of Civil Engineering, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152, USA (Accepted 21 June 1993)
Abstract A pot experiment was conducted to determine the effect of saline water on the establishment of windbreak trees and soil properties. Survival period of trees decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity resulted from irrigation water salinity. The survival period of Prosopis juliflora was significantly more than Casuarina equisetifolia and Eucalyptus camaldulensis. The decrease in total biomass yield was significant with increase in soil salinity. Soil salinity and sodicity increased significantly with an increase in irrigation water salinity and sodicity. Prosopisjuliflora tolerated soil salinity (ECe) up to 38.3 dS , m 1 with irrigation water salinity of 13.5 d S - m ~, Casuarina equisetifolia up to 27.6 dS, m ~ with irrigation water salinity of 6.6 d S - m ~and eucalyptus camaldulensis up to 15.2 dS, m - ~ with irrigation water salinity of 2.12 dS, m - ~ for proper establishment provided 15% excess water is applied as leaching requirement to control soil salinity. The experiment proved the sequence in salt tolerance for different trees as prosopis > casuarina > eucalyptus. The results suggested that prosopis juliflora should be cultivated as windbreak trees in landscape and sand stabilization projects. Key words." Water salinity; Tree survival and establishment; Biomass production; Soil salinity; Windbreak; Leaching requirement; Salt tolerance
*Corresponding author. 0378-3774/94/$07.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSD10378-3774(93) E0034-I
36
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
1. Introduction Inadequate fresh water supplies in Saudi Arabia encourages farmers to conserve water and utilize saline water to fulfill some of the crop water needs. According to an estimate, the total discharge in the main drainage canals of Al-Ahsa oasis is 8659644 m 3 per month (HIDA, 1984) and the water salinity ranges between 3533 and 7273 m g . l - ~ of total dissolved solids (Hussain and Sadiq, 1991). Recently, research on saline agriculture showed that different windbreak trees can be irrigated successfully with highly saline drainage waters (Blake, 1981; Sandhu and Abrol, 1981; Clemens et al., 1983; Tinus, 1983; Burg, 1984; Morris, 1984; Ahmed et al., 1985). The trees, grown as windbreaks, responded differently under varying saline and waterlogged growing conditions (Barrick, 1979; Malik and Sheikh, 1983; E1-Lakany and Luard, 1983; Dimitri and Schumann, 1984; Dahiya and Dhankhar, 1984; Kretinin and Dubovskaya, 1984; Peacock and Dudeck, 1985). However, Rhoades ( 1977, 1984) has suggested a new strategy for using saline waters for irrigation. The strategy is to substitute the saline water for the normal (low salinity) irrigation water when irrigating certain "salt tolerant" crops in the rotation when they are in a suitably tolerant growth stage, the normal water is used at the other times. The present investigation was carried out on the use of saline water for irrigation to establish windbreak trees and its effects on soil properties under extreme local climatic conditions. The specific study objectives were: ( 1) To study survival and biomass production of different windbreak trees under saline irrigation. (2) To select trees suitable for plantation as windbreaks to handle sand stabilization calamity. (3) To determine the effect of saline irrigation on soil properties.
2. Materials and methods A pot experiment was carried out at the King Faisal University Research and Experimental Station, A1-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. The details of different treatments are given below: (1) Soils = 3 (sandy, loam, sandy clay) ( 2 ) Waters = 5 ( W - 1 = 1360, W - 2 = 4256, W - 3 = 8640, W - 4 = 11648, W - 5 -- 15864 ppm (TDS) (3) Windbreak trees= 3 ( Prosopis juliflora, Casuarina equisetifolia, and Eucalyptus camaldulensis ) .
(4) Replications = 3 Total pots = 3 × 5 x 3 X 3 = 135. The experiment was done in plastic pots of 26 cm (diameter)×26 cm (height). The experimental soils were collected from within the station. The soils were air-dried, passed through 2 mm sieve and stored for use. Twelve and a half kilograms of each soil was added in each pot leaving upper 10 cm for irrigation application. Soils were analyzed for important physico-chemical characteristics (Table 1). The irrigation waters of the desired salinity were composed by mixing pure well water and pure drainage water in desired amounts and
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
37
Table 1 Physico-chemical properties of experimental soils Soil SP
pH
ECe
(%)
Ca 2+ + M g 2+
(dS.m
])
Na +
K+
CO~-
HCO~
CI-
SO]-
SAR
Texture
................................ mEq.l -I ...............................
1
18
7.95
1.68
8.50
8.74 1.54 -
6.25
2 3
30 62
7.30 7.40
13.50 12.50
110.50 84.40
65.25 2.35 78.40 3.20 -
8.45 4.75
7.50
11.3
4.24 Sand
92.50 84.5 107.50 57.6
8.90 Loam 12.10 Sandyclay
SP = saturation percentage; ECo = electrical conductivity of saturation paste extract; SAR = sodium adsorption ratio.
Table 2 Chemical composition of irrigation waters Water
pH
EC (dS.m
W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5
7.35 7.50 7.54 7.56 7.60
2.12 6.65 13.50 18.20 24.70
TDS i)
(mg.1 - I ) 1365 4256 8640 11648 15850
Ca 2+
Mg 2+
Na ÷
K+
CO 2-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mEq.1 6.7 11.7 23.7 32.0 43.6
5.50 7.98 16.2 21.4 29.7
8.12 46.9 95.4 128.5 175.0
1.03 1.13 1.18 1.19 1.62
-
HCO~
C1-
SO42
SAR
i ................................ 1.10 1.15 1.13 1.15 1.15
12.5 59.6 121.0 163.1 222.5
7,75 7,04 14.3 19.2 26.2
3.29 14.9 21.3 24.7 28.9
EC = electrical conductivity; TDS = total dissolved solids; SAR = sodium adsorption ratio.
proportions. The average chemical composition of waters is given in Table 2 The soils were irrigated to maintain soil moisture at field capacity plus 15% excess water as leaching requirement to control soil salinity within acceptable limits. The total amount of water applied was 1, 1.75 and 3.75 1 per pot per irrigation for sand, loam and sandy clay soils, respectively. The calculated amount of irrigation water to each pot was applied with the help of a graduated flask. The irrigation was applied twice a week. The tree pots were kept in the open. Some of the climate parameters recorded during the study period are given in Table 3. Five to 6-month-old seedlings of the selected trees (uniform growth) were taken from the farm nursery for experiment. A pre-planting irrigation was applied to each pot 2 days before planting. Tree seedlings were planted in the first week of June, 1986. In the first week, the trees were irrigated with well water for proper establishment and to observe any death due to transplanting. Establishment of windbreak trees is a major problem in Saudi Arabia, especially during hot and dry summer. Therefore, this study was done to observe tree establishment in this period. A weekly record was maintained for each tree with respect to its survival and death in different irrigation treatments and soils. The experiment was terminated after 16 weeks. The trees were harvested to estimate total biomass and reported on oven-dry basis. The analytical procedures for soil and water analysis were according to the USDA (1954). The data were subjected to analysis of variance techniques (Snedecor and Cochran, 1973).
G. Hussain et al. / Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
38
Table 3 Some climatic data at King Faisal University Experimental Station in 1986 Month
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Air temperature (°C)
Relative humidity (%)
Mean max.
Mean minimum
Mean max.
Mean minimum
6.3 9. l 13.5 20.3 24.8 26.2 28.1 27.4 23.9 19.8 13.8 8.5
20.6 22.7 27.2 32.6 41.1 40.8 45. l 44.2 41.2 37.4 28.2 20.6
35.6 29.3 28.6 29.6 17.9 18.2 18.0 17.3 15.4 16.8 30.1 39.0
82. l 91.4 80.5 81.1 50.9 49.1 45.1 68.2 67.4 67.3 70.8 87.2
Pan evaporation (ram/day)
5.0 7.2 9.3 11.4 20.7 22.7 24.5 19.0 16.2 12.6 9.3 4.3
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Tree survival Table 4 reveals that the mean survival period ranged between 8.33 and 16 weeks (eucalyptus), 7.66 and 16 weeks (casuarina) and 13 and 16 weeks (prosopis) under different treatments in the light, medium and heavy soils, respectively. The survival period of trees decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity as a result of saline irrigation (an LSD of 1.41 for eucalyptus, 1.64 for casuarina and 2.70 for prosopis at p = 0.05). This indicated as to how long and how much soil salinity is tolerable by different windbreak trees. In other words, with a given specific soil salinity level, the survival period was significantly less for eucalyptus followed by casuarina and prosopis. Prosopis proved to be the most salt-tolerant and resistant tree up to soil salinity (ECe) level of 38.3 d S - m - 1 when irrigated with water having salinity of 13.5 dS. m-1. Overall comparison of data show that the survival period of prosopis tree was significantly higher than casuarina and eucalyptus. This suggests that prosopis performance was significantly better as a windbreak tree under extreme climatic conditions where survival of other trees is questionable. The results agree with the findings of Clemens et al. (1983) who concluded that Casuarina inophloia growth was reduced significantly and the tree died at 150 mM NaC1 solution. However, Chaturvedi (1984) found that prosopis juliflora did well with irrigation water having an EC of 4.0 to 6.10 dS-m t 3.2. Biomass yield 3.2.1. Casuarina The mean biomass yield ranged between 2.13 and 16.2 g per pot in light soil, between 2.34 and 13.7 g per pot in medium soil and between 1.39 and 19.7 g per pot in heavy soil (Table 5 ). The biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity (an LSD
39
G. Hussain et al./ Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35~13
Table 4 Effect of saline water on survival period (weeks) of windbreak trees EC~ (dS-m -L )
2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 24.7
Eucalyptus
Casuarina
Prosopis
ECe
SP
ECe
SP
EC~
SP
15.2 26.1 35.9 48.6 65.0
16.0a 14.3b 10.3c 9.66c,d 8.33d
15.6 27.6 37.9 50.1 68.1
16.0a 16.0a 12.0b 9.3c 7.7d
14.8 27.4 38.3 51.4 68.9
16.0a 16.0a 16.0a 14.6a,b 13.0b
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p =0.05). SP = survival period. Table 5 Effect of saline water on tree biomass yield (g/pot) EC~ (dS.m i)
Light
Medium
Heavy
ECe
Yield
ECe
Yield
ECe
Yield
(A) Casuarina 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
14.3 36.1 51.6 67.7 91.4
16.2a 4.76b 4.19b,c 2.97c,d 2.13d
12.8 16.7 23.3 35.3 56.2
13.7a 4.64b 3.87b,c 3.13c,d 2.34d
19.7 30.1 38.9 47.2 58.2
19.7a 8.09b 2.84c 1.69c 1.39c
(B) Prosopis 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
16.7 33.5 41.6 58.7 75.3
24.3a 14.3b 5.94c 3.7 ld 3.12d
12.8 21.5 33.5 44.9 56.9
22.9a 17.0b 6.25c 4.23d 3.47d
15.0 27.3 39.7 50.7 74.4
26.7a 17.1 b 13.7c 7.33d 3.96e
(C) Eucalyptus 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
17.7 33.5 47.3 55.8 75.5
21.3a 4.32b 3.65b,c 2.47c,d 2.00d
13.3 18.4 32.8 44.4 59.6
16.0a 5.59b 4.80b,c 3.56c 2. I0d
14.6 20.3 27.8 45.6 60.0
22. I a 3.82b 3.04b 2.36b 1.83b
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p = 0.05).
o f 1.29 for light soil, 1.17 for m e d i u m soil a n d 2.16 for h e a v y soil at 5 % level o f signific a n c e ) . T h e d e c r e a s e in b i o m a s s w a s 7 1 % ( l i g h t s o i l ) , 6 6 % ( m e d i u m soil) a n d 5 9 % ( h e a v y soil) w i t h an i n c r e a s e in soil salinity f r o m i 2.8 to 36.1 d S . m r. Soil salinity v a l u e s r a n g i n g f r o m 12.8 to 36.1 d S - m ~ c a u s e d 74, 72 a n d 8 6 % r e d u c t i o n in b i o m a s s yield in light, m e d i u m a n d h e a v y soil, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s w o u l d m e a n that h i g h soil salinity r e s u l t e d f r o m saline w a t e r i r r i g a t i o n w a s d e t r i m e n t a l to the g r o w t h o f c a s u a r i n a in all types o f soils. T h e c u l t i v a t i o n o f the c a s u a r i n a tree c o u l d b e p o s s i b l e o n l y up to w a t e r salinity o f 6.6 d S - m
40
G. Hussain et al./ Agricultural WaterManagement25 (1994) 35-43
and soil salinity of 30.1 d S . m - 1 provided 15-20% excess water is applied as leaching requirements to control soil salinity. This is also indicated from the biomass yield which reduced to around 60% at a soil salinity value of 30.1 dS. m - J resulted from irrigation water salinity of 4250 mg.1-1 (TDS). This is further supported by the survival period which was 16 weeks. The only limitation was the stunted growth which is a usual phenomenon under saline irrigation practices. Since it is intended to be planted as a windbreak tree along road sides and field banks for sand stabilization, so it is not a costly preposition. The results were similar to those of Clemens et al. (1983) who observed significant growth reduction of Casuarina inphloia accompanied by shoot-tip chlorosis and or death at 150 mM NaC1 solution. However, El-Lakany and Luard (1983) stated that Casuarina equisetifolia var. incana was the most salt-tolerant, surviving up to 500 mM NaC1. The findings of the present study showed that the tree survival was good up to soil salinity level of 30.1 dS. m - 1 receiving irrigation water with salinity of 6.6 dS. m - 1. 3.2.2. Prosopis The mean biomass yield ranged between 3.12 and 24.3 g per pot (light soil), between 3.47 and 22.9 g per pot (medium soil) and between 3.96 and 26.7 g per pot (heavy soil) under different treatments (Table 5). The mean biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity (an LSD of 1.65 for light soil, 0.91 for medium soil and 2.28 for heavy soil at 5% level of significance). The relative decrease in biomass yield was 41% (light soil), 26% (medium soil) and 32% (heavy soil) with increase in soil salinity from 12.8 to 33.5 dS. m - ~resulting from irrigation water having salinity ranges from 2.12 to 6.6 dS. m - ~. Further increase in soil salinity from 33.5 to 41.6 dS. m - i caused 76, 72 and 48% reduction in biomass yield in light, medium and heavy soil, respectively. It is evident from the results that prosopis established well in heavy soil as compared to medium and light soils under high saline irrigation. This is further supported by the survival period of prosopis which was 16 weeks in heavy soil as compared to 15.2 weeks in medium soil and 14.2 weeks in light soil. Furthermore, the survival period of prosopis was 16 weeks at water salinity level of 13.5 dS. m-~ than other high water salinity treatments. The results agree with the findings of Chaturvedi (1984) who stated that prosopis juliflora did fine with irrigation waters having pH between 7.00 and 7.85 and EC from 4.00 to 6.10 d S . m - J . Also, Malik and Sheikh (1983) observed that prosopis juliflora did well under saline soils. In another study, Shaybany and Kashirad (1978) concluded that salt concentration of 96144 mEq- 1- ~caused 50% growth reduction in acacia saligna. Whereas, Dahiya and Dhankhat (1984) observed adverse effects of soil salinity above 14.2 dS .m ~ on ber (Ziziphus mauritiana). Overall, the experimental findings suggest that prosopis could be grown as a successful windbreak tree in sand stabilization projects using irrigation water up to 13.5 dS. m - J salinity. 3.2.3. Eucalyptus The mean biomass yield ranged between 2.00 to 21.3 g per pot in light soil, between 2.10 and 16.0 g per pot in medium soil and between 1.83 and 22.1 g per pot in heavy soil for different treatments (Table 5), The biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity as a result of saline irrigation (an LSD of 1.20 for light soil, 1.32 for medium soil and 2.07 for heavy soil at 5% level of significance). The decrease in biomass was 80%
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural WaterManagement25 (1994) 35~t3
41
(light soil), 65% ( m e d i u m soil) and 83% (heavy soil) with increase in soil salinity from 13.3 to 33.5 d S . m - ~ resulted from corresponding increase in water salinity from 2.12 to 6.6 d S , m - 2 This showed that the survival of the eucalyptus tree was minimum under saline soil and water conditions and would not prove a successful windbreak tree. Similar views were given by Malik and Sheikh (1983) who found that Eucalyptus camaldulensis did well under soil salinity level of 2.7 to 2.8 d S . m - ~ with a water table between 0 and 4 ft deep. Also, Miyamoto et al. (1984) showed that guayule growth reduced by half at 4.6 d S . m water salinity and the reduction in dry matter yield of shoot was 51% when irrigated with w a t e r o f 7 . 2 d S . m ~ salinity.
3.3. Effect o f water salinity on soil salinity The mean soil salinity ranged from 16.2 to 80.3 d S . m ~ in light soil, 12.7 to 56.9 d S . m - ~ in medium soil and 14.9 to 74.4 d S - m -~ in heavy soil for different treatments (Table 6. The soil salinity increased significantly with increase in water salinity (an LSD of 7.84 for light soil, 7.12 for medium soil and 5.62 for heavy soil at p = 0.05). Overall, the results indicated that the salt build up in soils was significant irrigated with high saline water. The interaction between trees and the soil salinity treatments was significant (an LSD of 2.27 at p = 0 . 0 5 ) . But some of the trees proved more salt-tolerant and resistant with regards to soil salinity and water salinity. Although the salt build up seemed very high yet the prosopis tree grew unexpectedly better and proved a successful windbreak tree under extreme climate and soil salinity growing conditions.
3.4. Effect o f SAR o f water on SAR o f soils The mean SAR of soils ranged from 18.9 to 72.5 (light soil), 15.4 to 56.5 ( m e d i u m soil) and 13.9 to 54.4 (heavy soils) in different treatments (Table 7. The SAR of soils increased significantly with increase in SAR of waters (an LSD of 5.22, 3.57 and 2.88 for light, medium and heavy soils, respectively at p = 0.05). In all, there was a significant increase in SAR of soils irrigated with high SAR waters and might create soil sodicity problem for the windbreak trees. However, the experimental findings showed that Prosopisjuliflora can withstand and establish well under high level Table 6 Effect of water salinity on soil salinity EC~ (dS.m 1)
2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 24.7
Light
Medium
Heavy
Average
EC~
LF
EC~
LF
ECe
LF
LF
16.2a 34.3b 46.8c 60.7d 80.7e
0.06 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.15
13.0a 18.9b 33.9c 41.5d 57.6e
0.08 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.21
16.4a 25.9b 35.5c 47.8d 64.3e
0.06 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19
0.07 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.19
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantlyby LSD (p =0.05). LF = leaching function
42
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35~t3
Table 7 Effect of SAR of waters on SAR of soils SAR
3.3 14.9 21.3 24.7 28.9
Light
Medium
Heavy
Average
SAR
LF
SAR
LF
SAR
LF
LF
18.9a 29.5b 41.4c 58.5d 72.5e
0.03 0.25 0.26 0.18 O. 16
15.4a 27.7b 35.6c 43.9d 56. Ie
0.05 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.27
15.0a 24.3b 35.2c 43.0d 54.0e
0.05 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.29
0.04 0.3 I 0.33 0.28 0.24
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p = 0.05 ). o f soil salinity a n d s o d i c i t y c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s was f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d f r o m the total b i o m a s s yield o f p r o s o p i s w h i c h w a s significantly m o r e as c o m p a r e d to o t h e r trees. It was p r o v e d f r o m this e x p e r i m e n t that p r o s o p i s t o l e r a t e d a n d resisted h i g h e r levels o f soil a n d w a t e r salinity t h a n c a s u a r i n a a n d e u c a l y p t u s . T h e s e q u e n c e in salt t o l e r a n c e w a s p r o s o p i s > casuarina > eucalyptus.
4. Conclusions P r o s o p i s s h o w e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s u r v i v a l rate a n d b e t t e r g r o w t h u n d e r saline irrigation as well as d i f f e r e n t soil types w h e n c o m p a r e d to c a s u a r i n a a n d e u c a l y p t u s trees. P r o s o p i s t o l e r a t e d soil salinity (EC~,) up to 38.3 d S . m J irrigated w i t h w a t e r o f 13.5 d S . m - J salinity, c a s u a r i n a up to 27.6 d S . m ~ irrigated w i t h w a t e r o f 6.6 d S . m t salinity a n d e u c a l y p t u s up to 15.2 d S . m - ~ irrigated with w a t e r o f 2.12 d S . m J salinity for well e s t a b l i s h m e n t p r o v i d e d m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s like l e a c h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , p l a n t i n g m e t h o d s etc. are p r o p e r l y f o l l o w e d . P r o s o p i s c u l t i v a t i o n s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d as a successful w i n d b r e a k tree for d e v e l o p i n g l a n d s c a p e a n d in sand s t a b i l i z a t i o n projects.
5. References Ahmcd, R., Khan, D. and lsmail, S., 1985. Growth of Azadirachta lndica and Melia Azedarach at coastal sand using highly saline water for irrigation. Pak. J. Bot., 17: 229-233. Barrick, W.E., 1979. Salt tolerant plants for Florida landscapes. Report, Florida Sea Grant College, No. 28, 71 pp. Blake, T.J, 198 I. Salt tolerance of Eucalyptus species grown in saline solution culture. Aust. For. Res., I 1: 179183. Burg, J. Van Den., 1984. Salt tolerance of poplars and Willows. Populier, 21 : 4247. Chaturvedi, A.N., 1984. Firewood crops in areas of brakish water. Indian For., 110: 364-366. Clemens, J., Campbell, J.C. and Nurisjah, S., 1983. Germination, growth and mineral ion concentration ofcasuarina species under saline conditions. Aust. J. Bot., 31 : 1-9. Dahiya. S.S. and Dhankhar, O,P., 1984. Studies on salt tolerance of bet. Haryana J. Hortic. Sci., 11 : 55-58. Dimitri, L. and Schumann, G., 1984. Studies on the salt resistance of various willow species and clones. Rev. Allgem. Forstzeit-schrift, 14/15: 384. ELLakany, M.H. and Luard, E,J., 1983. Comparative salt tolerance of selected Casuarina species, Aust. For. Res., 13:11-20.
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
43
Hassa Irrigation and Drainage Authority, 1984. Report on the Al-Hassa Irrigation and drainage project. Hussain, G. and Sadiq, M., 1991. Metal chemistry of irrigation and drainage waters of Al-Ahsa Saudi Arabia and its effects on soil properties. Water Air Soil Pollut., 57: 773-783. Kretinin, V.M. and Dubovskaya, L.V., 1984. Reaction of trees to soil alkalinity and salinity. Soviet Soil Sci., 16: 52-58. Malik, M.N. and Sheikh, M.I., 1983. Planting of trees in saline and water-logged areas, Part I. Test planting at Azakhel. Pak. J. For., 33: 1-17. Miyamoto, S., Pima, K. and Gobran, G.R., 1984. Salt effects on transplant mortality, growth and rubber yields of guayule. Irrig. Sci., 5: 275-284. Morris, J.D., 1984. Establishment of trees and shrubs on a saline site using drip irrigation. Aust. For.~ 47: 210217. Peacock, C.H. and Dudeck, A.E., 1985. Physiological and growth responses of seashore Paspalum to salinity. Hortic. Sci., 20: I 11-112. Rhoades, J.D., 1977. Potential for using saline agricultural drainage waters for irrigation. Proceeding Water Management for Irrigation and Drainage. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reno, Nevada, July 20-22. Rhoades, J.D., 1984. New strategy for using saline waters for irrigation. Proceeding American Society of Civil Engineers. Irrigation and Drainage Specialty Conference. Water- Today and Tomorrow, July 24-26, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA, pp. 231-236. Sandhu, S.S. and Abrol, I.P., 1981. Growth responses of eucalyptus tereticornis and acacia nilotica to selected cultural treatments is a highly sodic soil. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 51 : 437-443. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G., 1973. Statistical Methods, 6th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA. Tinus, R.W., 1983. Salt tolerance of I 0 deciduous shrub and tree species. Proceeding Intermountain Nurseryman' s Association, 1983 Conference, August 8-11. USDA, 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Handbook No.60, Washington, DC.
Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
Effect of saline water on establishment of windbreak trees Ghulam Hussain a'*, Mohammad Sadiq b, Yahya A. Nabulsi c, Otto J. Helweg d ~lnstitute of Natural Resources and Environment, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 6086, Riyadh 11442, Saudi Arabia bWater Resources and Environment Division, Research Institute, King Fahad Universi~ of Petroleum and Minerals, P.O. Box 417, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia "Department of Soil and Water, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences, KFU, P.O. Box 420, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia dDepartment of Civil Engineering, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152, USA (Accepted 21 June 1993)
Abstract A pot experiment was conducted to determine the effect of saline water on the establishment of windbreak trees and soil properties. Survival period of trees decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity resulted from irrigation water salinity. The survival period of Prosopis juliflora was significantly more than Casuarina equisetifolia and Eucalyptus camaldulensis. The decrease in total biomass yield was significant with increase in soil salinity. Soil salinity and sodicity increased significantly with an increase in irrigation water salinity and sodicity. Prosopisjuliflora tolerated soil salinity (ECe) up to 38.3 dS , m 1 with irrigation water salinity of 13.5 d S - m ~, Casuarina equisetifolia up to 27.6 dS, m ~ with irrigation water salinity of 6.6 d S - m ~and eucalyptus camaldulensis up to 15.2 dS, m - ~ with irrigation water salinity of 2.12 dS, m - ~ for proper establishment provided 15% excess water is applied as leaching requirement to control soil salinity. The experiment proved the sequence in salt tolerance for different trees as prosopis > casuarina > eucalyptus. The results suggested that prosopis juliflora should be cultivated as windbreak trees in landscape and sand stabilization projects. Key words." Water salinity; Tree survival and establishment; Biomass production; Soil salinity; Windbreak; Leaching requirement; Salt tolerance
*Corresponding author. 0378-3774/94/$07.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSD10378-3774(93) E0034-I
36
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
1. Introduction Inadequate fresh water supplies in Saudi Arabia encourages farmers to conserve water and utilize saline water to fulfill some of the crop water needs. According to an estimate, the total discharge in the main drainage canals of Al-Ahsa oasis is 8659644 m 3 per month (HIDA, 1984) and the water salinity ranges between 3533 and 7273 m g . l - ~ of total dissolved solids (Hussain and Sadiq, 1991). Recently, research on saline agriculture showed that different windbreak trees can be irrigated successfully with highly saline drainage waters (Blake, 1981; Sandhu and Abrol, 1981; Clemens et al., 1983; Tinus, 1983; Burg, 1984; Morris, 1984; Ahmed et al., 1985). The trees, grown as windbreaks, responded differently under varying saline and waterlogged growing conditions (Barrick, 1979; Malik and Sheikh, 1983; E1-Lakany and Luard, 1983; Dimitri and Schumann, 1984; Dahiya and Dhankhar, 1984; Kretinin and Dubovskaya, 1984; Peacock and Dudeck, 1985). However, Rhoades ( 1977, 1984) has suggested a new strategy for using saline waters for irrigation. The strategy is to substitute the saline water for the normal (low salinity) irrigation water when irrigating certain "salt tolerant" crops in the rotation when they are in a suitably tolerant growth stage, the normal water is used at the other times. The present investigation was carried out on the use of saline water for irrigation to establish windbreak trees and its effects on soil properties under extreme local climatic conditions. The specific study objectives were: ( 1) To study survival and biomass production of different windbreak trees under saline irrigation. (2) To select trees suitable for plantation as windbreaks to handle sand stabilization calamity. (3) To determine the effect of saline irrigation on soil properties.
2. Materials and methods A pot experiment was carried out at the King Faisal University Research and Experimental Station, A1-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. The details of different treatments are given below: (1) Soils = 3 (sandy, loam, sandy clay) ( 2 ) Waters = 5 ( W - 1 = 1360, W - 2 = 4256, W - 3 = 8640, W - 4 = 11648, W - 5 -- 15864 ppm (TDS) (3) Windbreak trees= 3 ( Prosopis juliflora, Casuarina equisetifolia, and Eucalyptus camaldulensis ) .
(4) Replications = 3 Total pots = 3 × 5 x 3 X 3 = 135. The experiment was done in plastic pots of 26 cm (diameter)×26 cm (height). The experimental soils were collected from within the station. The soils were air-dried, passed through 2 mm sieve and stored for use. Twelve and a half kilograms of each soil was added in each pot leaving upper 10 cm for irrigation application. Soils were analyzed for important physico-chemical characteristics (Table 1). The irrigation waters of the desired salinity were composed by mixing pure well water and pure drainage water in desired amounts and
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
37
Table 1 Physico-chemical properties of experimental soils Soil SP
pH
ECe
(%)
Ca 2+ + M g 2+
(dS.m
])
Na +
K+
CO~-
HCO~
CI-
SO]-
SAR
Texture
................................ mEq.l -I ...............................
1
18
7.95
1.68
8.50
8.74 1.54 -
6.25
2 3
30 62
7.30 7.40
13.50 12.50
110.50 84.40
65.25 2.35 78.40 3.20 -
8.45 4.75
7.50
11.3
4.24 Sand
92.50 84.5 107.50 57.6
8.90 Loam 12.10 Sandyclay
SP = saturation percentage; ECo = electrical conductivity of saturation paste extract; SAR = sodium adsorption ratio.
Table 2 Chemical composition of irrigation waters Water
pH
EC (dS.m
W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5
7.35 7.50 7.54 7.56 7.60
2.12 6.65 13.50 18.20 24.70
TDS i)
(mg.1 - I ) 1365 4256 8640 11648 15850
Ca 2+
Mg 2+
Na ÷
K+
CO 2-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mEq.1 6.7 11.7 23.7 32.0 43.6
5.50 7.98 16.2 21.4 29.7
8.12 46.9 95.4 128.5 175.0
1.03 1.13 1.18 1.19 1.62
-
HCO~
C1-
SO42
SAR
i ................................ 1.10 1.15 1.13 1.15 1.15
12.5 59.6 121.0 163.1 222.5
7,75 7,04 14.3 19.2 26.2
3.29 14.9 21.3 24.7 28.9
EC = electrical conductivity; TDS = total dissolved solids; SAR = sodium adsorption ratio.
proportions. The average chemical composition of waters is given in Table 2 The soils were irrigated to maintain soil moisture at field capacity plus 15% excess water as leaching requirement to control soil salinity within acceptable limits. The total amount of water applied was 1, 1.75 and 3.75 1 per pot per irrigation for sand, loam and sandy clay soils, respectively. The calculated amount of irrigation water to each pot was applied with the help of a graduated flask. The irrigation was applied twice a week. The tree pots were kept in the open. Some of the climate parameters recorded during the study period are given in Table 3. Five to 6-month-old seedlings of the selected trees (uniform growth) were taken from the farm nursery for experiment. A pre-planting irrigation was applied to each pot 2 days before planting. Tree seedlings were planted in the first week of June, 1986. In the first week, the trees were irrigated with well water for proper establishment and to observe any death due to transplanting. Establishment of windbreak trees is a major problem in Saudi Arabia, especially during hot and dry summer. Therefore, this study was done to observe tree establishment in this period. A weekly record was maintained for each tree with respect to its survival and death in different irrigation treatments and soils. The experiment was terminated after 16 weeks. The trees were harvested to estimate total biomass and reported on oven-dry basis. The analytical procedures for soil and water analysis were according to the USDA (1954). The data were subjected to analysis of variance techniques (Snedecor and Cochran, 1973).
G. Hussain et al. / Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
38
Table 3 Some climatic data at King Faisal University Experimental Station in 1986 Month
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Air temperature (°C)
Relative humidity (%)
Mean max.
Mean minimum
Mean max.
Mean minimum
6.3 9. l 13.5 20.3 24.8 26.2 28.1 27.4 23.9 19.8 13.8 8.5
20.6 22.7 27.2 32.6 41.1 40.8 45. l 44.2 41.2 37.4 28.2 20.6
35.6 29.3 28.6 29.6 17.9 18.2 18.0 17.3 15.4 16.8 30.1 39.0
82. l 91.4 80.5 81.1 50.9 49.1 45.1 68.2 67.4 67.3 70.8 87.2
Pan evaporation (ram/day)
5.0 7.2 9.3 11.4 20.7 22.7 24.5 19.0 16.2 12.6 9.3 4.3
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Tree survival Table 4 reveals that the mean survival period ranged between 8.33 and 16 weeks (eucalyptus), 7.66 and 16 weeks (casuarina) and 13 and 16 weeks (prosopis) under different treatments in the light, medium and heavy soils, respectively. The survival period of trees decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity as a result of saline irrigation (an LSD of 1.41 for eucalyptus, 1.64 for casuarina and 2.70 for prosopis at p = 0.05). This indicated as to how long and how much soil salinity is tolerable by different windbreak trees. In other words, with a given specific soil salinity level, the survival period was significantly less for eucalyptus followed by casuarina and prosopis. Prosopis proved to be the most salt-tolerant and resistant tree up to soil salinity (ECe) level of 38.3 d S - m - 1 when irrigated with water having salinity of 13.5 dS. m-1. Overall comparison of data show that the survival period of prosopis tree was significantly higher than casuarina and eucalyptus. This suggests that prosopis performance was significantly better as a windbreak tree under extreme climatic conditions where survival of other trees is questionable. The results agree with the findings of Clemens et al. (1983) who concluded that Casuarina inophloia growth was reduced significantly and the tree died at 150 mM NaC1 solution. However, Chaturvedi (1984) found that prosopis juliflora did well with irrigation water having an EC of 4.0 to 6.10 dS-m t 3.2. Biomass yield 3.2.1. Casuarina The mean biomass yield ranged between 2.13 and 16.2 g per pot in light soil, between 2.34 and 13.7 g per pot in medium soil and between 1.39 and 19.7 g per pot in heavy soil (Table 5 ). The biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity (an LSD
39
G. Hussain et al./ Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35~13
Table 4 Effect of saline water on survival period (weeks) of windbreak trees EC~ (dS-m -L )
2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 24.7
Eucalyptus
Casuarina
Prosopis
ECe
SP
ECe
SP
EC~
SP
15.2 26.1 35.9 48.6 65.0
16.0a 14.3b 10.3c 9.66c,d 8.33d
15.6 27.6 37.9 50.1 68.1
16.0a 16.0a 12.0b 9.3c 7.7d
14.8 27.4 38.3 51.4 68.9
16.0a 16.0a 16.0a 14.6a,b 13.0b
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p =0.05). SP = survival period. Table 5 Effect of saline water on tree biomass yield (g/pot) EC~ (dS.m i)
Light
Medium
Heavy
ECe
Yield
ECe
Yield
ECe
Yield
(A) Casuarina 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
14.3 36.1 51.6 67.7 91.4
16.2a 4.76b 4.19b,c 2.97c,d 2.13d
12.8 16.7 23.3 35.3 56.2
13.7a 4.64b 3.87b,c 3.13c,d 2.34d
19.7 30.1 38.9 47.2 58.2
19.7a 8.09b 2.84c 1.69c 1.39c
(B) Prosopis 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
16.7 33.5 41.6 58.7 75.3
24.3a 14.3b 5.94c 3.7 ld 3.12d
12.8 21.5 33.5 44.9 56.9
22.9a 17.0b 6.25c 4.23d 3.47d
15.0 27.3 39.7 50.7 74.4
26.7a 17.1 b 13.7c 7.33d 3.96e
(C) Eucalyptus 2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 28.9
17.7 33.5 47.3 55.8 75.5
21.3a 4.32b 3.65b,c 2.47c,d 2.00d
13.3 18.4 32.8 44.4 59.6
16.0a 5.59b 4.80b,c 3.56c 2. I0d
14.6 20.3 27.8 45.6 60.0
22. I a 3.82b 3.04b 2.36b 1.83b
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p = 0.05).
o f 1.29 for light soil, 1.17 for m e d i u m soil a n d 2.16 for h e a v y soil at 5 % level o f signific a n c e ) . T h e d e c r e a s e in b i o m a s s w a s 7 1 % ( l i g h t s o i l ) , 6 6 % ( m e d i u m soil) a n d 5 9 % ( h e a v y soil) w i t h an i n c r e a s e in soil salinity f r o m i 2.8 to 36.1 d S . m r. Soil salinity v a l u e s r a n g i n g f r o m 12.8 to 36.1 d S - m ~ c a u s e d 74, 72 a n d 8 6 % r e d u c t i o n in b i o m a s s yield in light, m e d i u m a n d h e a v y soil, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s w o u l d m e a n that h i g h soil salinity r e s u l t e d f r o m saline w a t e r i r r i g a t i o n w a s d e t r i m e n t a l to the g r o w t h o f c a s u a r i n a in all types o f soils. T h e c u l t i v a t i o n o f the c a s u a r i n a tree c o u l d b e p o s s i b l e o n l y up to w a t e r salinity o f 6.6 d S - m
40
G. Hussain et al./ Agricultural WaterManagement25 (1994) 35-43
and soil salinity of 30.1 d S . m - 1 provided 15-20% excess water is applied as leaching requirements to control soil salinity. This is also indicated from the biomass yield which reduced to around 60% at a soil salinity value of 30.1 dS. m - J resulted from irrigation water salinity of 4250 mg.1-1 (TDS). This is further supported by the survival period which was 16 weeks. The only limitation was the stunted growth which is a usual phenomenon under saline irrigation practices. Since it is intended to be planted as a windbreak tree along road sides and field banks for sand stabilization, so it is not a costly preposition. The results were similar to those of Clemens et al. (1983) who observed significant growth reduction of Casuarina inphloia accompanied by shoot-tip chlorosis and or death at 150 mM NaC1 solution. However, El-Lakany and Luard (1983) stated that Casuarina equisetifolia var. incana was the most salt-tolerant, surviving up to 500 mM NaC1. The findings of the present study showed that the tree survival was good up to soil salinity level of 30.1 dS. m - 1 receiving irrigation water with salinity of 6.6 dS. m - 1. 3.2.2. Prosopis The mean biomass yield ranged between 3.12 and 24.3 g per pot (light soil), between 3.47 and 22.9 g per pot (medium soil) and between 3.96 and 26.7 g per pot (heavy soil) under different treatments (Table 5). The mean biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity (an LSD of 1.65 for light soil, 0.91 for medium soil and 2.28 for heavy soil at 5% level of significance). The relative decrease in biomass yield was 41% (light soil), 26% (medium soil) and 32% (heavy soil) with increase in soil salinity from 12.8 to 33.5 dS. m - ~resulting from irrigation water having salinity ranges from 2.12 to 6.6 dS. m - ~. Further increase in soil salinity from 33.5 to 41.6 dS. m - i caused 76, 72 and 48% reduction in biomass yield in light, medium and heavy soil, respectively. It is evident from the results that prosopis established well in heavy soil as compared to medium and light soils under high saline irrigation. This is further supported by the survival period of prosopis which was 16 weeks in heavy soil as compared to 15.2 weeks in medium soil and 14.2 weeks in light soil. Furthermore, the survival period of prosopis was 16 weeks at water salinity level of 13.5 dS. m-~ than other high water salinity treatments. The results agree with the findings of Chaturvedi (1984) who stated that prosopis juliflora did fine with irrigation waters having pH between 7.00 and 7.85 and EC from 4.00 to 6.10 d S . m - J . Also, Malik and Sheikh (1983) observed that prosopis juliflora did well under saline soils. In another study, Shaybany and Kashirad (1978) concluded that salt concentration of 96144 mEq- 1- ~caused 50% growth reduction in acacia saligna. Whereas, Dahiya and Dhankhat (1984) observed adverse effects of soil salinity above 14.2 dS .m ~ on ber (Ziziphus mauritiana). Overall, the experimental findings suggest that prosopis could be grown as a successful windbreak tree in sand stabilization projects using irrigation water up to 13.5 dS. m - J salinity. 3.2.3. Eucalyptus The mean biomass yield ranged between 2.00 to 21.3 g per pot in light soil, between 2.10 and 16.0 g per pot in medium soil and between 1.83 and 22.1 g per pot in heavy soil for different treatments (Table 5), The biomass yield decreased significantly with increase in soil salinity as a result of saline irrigation (an LSD of 1.20 for light soil, 1.32 for medium soil and 2.07 for heavy soil at 5% level of significance). The decrease in biomass was 80%
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural WaterManagement25 (1994) 35~t3
41
(light soil), 65% ( m e d i u m soil) and 83% (heavy soil) with increase in soil salinity from 13.3 to 33.5 d S . m - ~ resulted from corresponding increase in water salinity from 2.12 to 6.6 d S , m - 2 This showed that the survival of the eucalyptus tree was minimum under saline soil and water conditions and would not prove a successful windbreak tree. Similar views were given by Malik and Sheikh (1983) who found that Eucalyptus camaldulensis did well under soil salinity level of 2.7 to 2.8 d S . m - ~ with a water table between 0 and 4 ft deep. Also, Miyamoto et al. (1984) showed that guayule growth reduced by half at 4.6 d S . m water salinity and the reduction in dry matter yield of shoot was 51% when irrigated with w a t e r o f 7 . 2 d S . m ~ salinity.
3.3. Effect o f water salinity on soil salinity The mean soil salinity ranged from 16.2 to 80.3 d S . m ~ in light soil, 12.7 to 56.9 d S . m - ~ in medium soil and 14.9 to 74.4 d S - m -~ in heavy soil for different treatments (Table 6. The soil salinity increased significantly with increase in water salinity (an LSD of 7.84 for light soil, 7.12 for medium soil and 5.62 for heavy soil at p = 0.05). Overall, the results indicated that the salt build up in soils was significant irrigated with high saline water. The interaction between trees and the soil salinity treatments was significant (an LSD of 2.27 at p = 0 . 0 5 ) . But some of the trees proved more salt-tolerant and resistant with regards to soil salinity and water salinity. Although the salt build up seemed very high yet the prosopis tree grew unexpectedly better and proved a successful windbreak tree under extreme climate and soil salinity growing conditions.
3.4. Effect o f SAR o f water on SAR o f soils The mean SAR of soils ranged from 18.9 to 72.5 (light soil), 15.4 to 56.5 ( m e d i u m soil) and 13.9 to 54.4 (heavy soils) in different treatments (Table 7. The SAR of soils increased significantly with increase in SAR of waters (an LSD of 5.22, 3.57 and 2.88 for light, medium and heavy soils, respectively at p = 0.05). In all, there was a significant increase in SAR of soils irrigated with high SAR waters and might create soil sodicity problem for the windbreak trees. However, the experimental findings showed that Prosopisjuliflora can withstand and establish well under high level Table 6 Effect of water salinity on soil salinity EC~ (dS.m 1)
2.1 6.6 13.5 18.2 24.7
Light
Medium
Heavy
Average
EC~
LF
EC~
LF
ECe
LF
LF
16.2a 34.3b 46.8c 60.7d 80.7e
0.06 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.15
13.0a 18.9b 33.9c 41.5d 57.6e
0.08 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.21
16.4a 25.9b 35.5c 47.8d 64.3e
0.06 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19
0.07 0.13 0.18 0.19 0.19
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantlyby LSD (p =0.05). LF = leaching function
42
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35~t3
Table 7 Effect of SAR of waters on SAR of soils SAR
3.3 14.9 21.3 24.7 28.9
Light
Medium
Heavy
Average
SAR
LF
SAR
LF
SAR
LF
LF
18.9a 29.5b 41.4c 58.5d 72.5e
0.03 0.25 0.26 0.18 O. 16
15.4a 27.7b 35.6c 43.9d 56. Ie
0.05 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.27
15.0a 24.3b 35.2c 43.0d 54.0e
0.05 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.29
0.04 0.3 I 0.33 0.28 0.24
Data in a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly by LSD (p = 0.05 ). o f soil salinity a n d s o d i c i t y c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s was f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d f r o m the total b i o m a s s yield o f p r o s o p i s w h i c h w a s significantly m o r e as c o m p a r e d to o t h e r trees. It was p r o v e d f r o m this e x p e r i m e n t that p r o s o p i s t o l e r a t e d a n d resisted h i g h e r levels o f soil a n d w a t e r salinity t h a n c a s u a r i n a a n d e u c a l y p t u s . T h e s e q u e n c e in salt t o l e r a n c e w a s p r o s o p i s > casuarina > eucalyptus.
4. Conclusions P r o s o p i s s h o w e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s u r v i v a l rate a n d b e t t e r g r o w t h u n d e r saline irrigation as well as d i f f e r e n t soil types w h e n c o m p a r e d to c a s u a r i n a a n d e u c a l y p t u s trees. P r o s o p i s t o l e r a t e d soil salinity (EC~,) up to 38.3 d S . m J irrigated w i t h w a t e r o f 13.5 d S . m - J salinity, c a s u a r i n a up to 27.6 d S . m ~ irrigated w i t h w a t e r o f 6.6 d S . m t salinity a n d e u c a l y p t u s up to 15.2 d S . m - ~ irrigated with w a t e r o f 2.12 d S . m J salinity for well e s t a b l i s h m e n t p r o v i d e d m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s like l e a c h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , p l a n t i n g m e t h o d s etc. are p r o p e r l y f o l l o w e d . P r o s o p i s c u l t i v a t i o n s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d as a successful w i n d b r e a k tree for d e v e l o p i n g l a n d s c a p e a n d in sand s t a b i l i z a t i o n projects.
5. References Ahmcd, R., Khan, D. and lsmail, S., 1985. Growth of Azadirachta lndica and Melia Azedarach at coastal sand using highly saline water for irrigation. Pak. J. Bot., 17: 229-233. Barrick, W.E., 1979. Salt tolerant plants for Florida landscapes. Report, Florida Sea Grant College, No. 28, 71 pp. Blake, T.J, 198 I. Salt tolerance of Eucalyptus species grown in saline solution culture. Aust. For. Res., I 1: 179183. Burg, J. Van Den., 1984. Salt tolerance of poplars and Willows. Populier, 21 : 4247. Chaturvedi, A.N., 1984. Firewood crops in areas of brakish water. Indian For., 110: 364-366. Clemens, J., Campbell, J.C. and Nurisjah, S., 1983. Germination, growth and mineral ion concentration ofcasuarina species under saline conditions. Aust. J. Bot., 31 : 1-9. Dahiya. S.S. and Dhankhar, O,P., 1984. Studies on salt tolerance of bet. Haryana J. Hortic. Sci., 11 : 55-58. Dimitri, L. and Schumann, G., 1984. Studies on the salt resistance of various willow species and clones. Rev. Allgem. Forstzeit-schrift, 14/15: 384. ELLakany, M.H. and Luard, E,J., 1983. Comparative salt tolerance of selected Casuarina species, Aust. For. Res., 13:11-20.
G. Hussain et al. /Agricultural Water Management 25 (1994) 35-43
43
Hassa Irrigation and Drainage Authority, 1984. Report on the Al-Hassa Irrigation and drainage project. Hussain, G. and Sadiq, M., 1991. Metal chemistry of irrigation and drainage waters of Al-Ahsa Saudi Arabia and its effects on soil properties. Water Air Soil Pollut., 57: 773-783. Kretinin, V.M. and Dubovskaya, L.V., 1984. Reaction of trees to soil alkalinity and salinity. Soviet Soil Sci., 16: 52-58. Malik, M.N. and Sheikh, M.I., 1983. Planting of trees in saline and water-logged areas, Part I. Test planting at Azakhel. Pak. J. For., 33: 1-17. Miyamoto, S., Pima, K. and Gobran, G.R., 1984. Salt effects on transplant mortality, growth and rubber yields of guayule. Irrig. Sci., 5: 275-284. Morris, J.D., 1984. Establishment of trees and shrubs on a saline site using drip irrigation. Aust. For.~ 47: 210217. Peacock, C.H. and Dudeck, A.E., 1985. Physiological and growth responses of seashore Paspalum to salinity. Hortic. Sci., 20: I 11-112. Rhoades, J.D., 1977. Potential for using saline agricultural drainage waters for irrigation. Proceeding Water Management for Irrigation and Drainage. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reno, Nevada, July 20-22. Rhoades, J.D., 1984. New strategy for using saline waters for irrigation. Proceeding American Society of Civil Engineers. Irrigation and Drainage Specialty Conference. Water- Today and Tomorrow, July 24-26, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA, pp. 231-236. Sandhu, S.S. and Abrol, I.P., 1981. Growth responses of eucalyptus tereticornis and acacia nilotica to selected cultural treatments is a highly sodic soil. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 51 : 437-443. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G., 1973. Statistical Methods, 6th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA. Tinus, R.W., 1983. Salt tolerance of I 0 deciduous shrub and tree species. Proceeding Intermountain Nurseryman' s Association, 1983 Conference, August 8-11. USDA, 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Handbook No.60, Washington, DC.