Research achievements

Research achievements 

Major Research achievements
The salient achievements of the project are given in following pages :
Lot of work has been done under the aegis of AICRP on management of salt affected soils and use of saline water on quality of underground water of Jaipur, non-command area of Bikaner, Churu and part of Nagaur districts. In Bikaner, Churu and part of Nagaur districts from last decade only the farmers are installing tubewells in their fields and have started irrigated agriculture. Thus the quality of underground waters which had been quoted by earlier workers was related to the water (wells) which were dug by PHED and used for human consumption and not for agricultural purposes. Work on ground water quality done under the above mentioned project is highlighted below.
Jaipur District :
Twelve tehsils of Jaipur district viz. Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jaipur, Sanganer, Bassi, Dudu, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar, Jamva Ramgarh and Dausa were surveyed to know the underground water quality. Vyas et.al. (1993) reported that in underground water of Jaipur district the pH ranged between 7.0 to 9.0. EC of 79.5 percent samples was less than 4 dSm-1 and of 62.5 percent samples it was even < 2.0 dSm-1. In case of Bassi, Dausa, Dudu, Phagi and Sambhar tehsils, more than 10 percent samples had EC>6 dSm-1. Except Sanganer, Bassi and Sambhar tehsils, more than 54 percent samples had RSC < 2.5 mel-1 and about 7.5 to 27.1 percent samples had RSC between 2.5 to 5.0 mel-1. Sanganer and Sambhar tehsils had more than 40 percent samples having RSC > 5.0 mel-1. On an average 57.8, 19.5, 15.0 and 7.5 percent of total samples had RSC < 2.5, 2.5-5.0, 5.0-10.0 and > 10.0 mel-1, respectively. In Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jamva Ramgarh and Jaipur tehsils more than 80 percent samples had SAR value of < 10. Whereas, in Sanganer, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar and Dausa tehsils 34.4 to 41.5 percent samples had SAR between 10 to 20. In Sambhar and Dudu tehsils more than 30 percent samples had SAR>20. Range of chemical characteristics of tubewells/open well waters and distribution percentage of samples of different tehsils of Jaipur District falling into different ranges of pH, EC, RSC & SAR are given in Table 2.15 and 2.16, respectively.
Table 2.15: Range of chemical characteristics of Tubewells/Open well waters of various tehsils of Jaipur District
Chemical Characteristics Tehsils
Kotputali
(53)* Viratnagar
(70) Amber
(207) Jaipur (107) Sanganer (53) Bassi
(59)
pH
EC (dSm-1)
Ca++ (mel-1)
Mg++ (mel-1)
Na+ (mel-1)
K+ (mel-1)
CO3-2+HCO3-1 (mel-1)
Cl-1 (mel-1)
RSC (mel-1)
SAR 7.0-9.0
0.6-7.0
2.4-22.2**
--
1.0-47.2
0.1-2.0
4.0-16.0

0.8-52.2
Nil-12.4
0.7-19.8 7.3-8.8
0.9-7.0
1.4-22.6**
--
1.0-46.0
0.1-0.5
4.0-18.0

0.8-47.0
Nil-11.0
0.6-15.2 7.2-9.0
0.4-2.9
0.2-4.0
0.0-10.0
1.0-24.0
--
1.8-10.0

0.0-156.0
Nil-11.9
0.6-21.9 7.1-8.2
0.5-6.1
0.2-0.6
0.4-15.7
1.0-41.0
0.01-1.0
1.6-16.0

0.8-46.2
Nil-18.2
0.4-30.8 7.0-8.7
0.6-6.5
0.6-15.6**
--
1.0-54.2
0.1-0.5
3.2-27.0

1.0-46.6
Nil-19.2
0.6-25.5 7.3-8.8
0.5-21.5
0.8-71.4**
--
1.0-140.0
--
3.3-20.6

1.0-182.4
Nil-20.6
0.6-26.1
Dudu (209) Phagi
(59) Chaksu
(61) Sambhar (162) J. Ramgarh (48) Dausa
(53)
pH
EC (dSm-1)
Ca++ (mel-1)
Mg++ (mel-1)
Na+ (mel-1)
K+ (mel-1)
CO3-2+HCO3-1
(mel-1)
Cl-1 (mel-1)
RSC (mel-1)
SAR 7.1-8.9
0.5-17.6
0.2-0.3
1.5-68.4
1.6-156.0
--
tr-43.0

1.0-158.5
Nil-20.6
1.1-97.8 7.2-8.9
0.7-12.0
2.2-69.6**
--
2.0-84.5
0.1-0.40
4.9-26.4

1.0-120.6
Nil-19.4
1.2-29.3 7.3-8.7
0.6-8.2
1.6-57.6**
--
2.5-46.6
--
3.4-17.4

2.2-53.0
Nil-12.1
1.3-18.3 7.0-8.4
0.6-41.6
0.5-21.5**
6.0-57.0
3.0-260.0
--
4.0-40.0

1.0-235.0
Nil-36.5
1.5-52.0 7.4-8.8
0.4-2.3
3.0-11.1**
--
1.2-72.0
--
2.5-17.5

1.5-66.0
Nil-12.4
0.6-16.8 7.0-8.8
0.6-10.0
tr-35.0**
--
3.5-102.2
--
2.2-20.6

2.0-118.0
Nil-19.6
2.0-41.8
Source : Vyas et al. (1993) * Number of samples tested ** Figures are of Ca + Mg

Characterisation of under ground waters and soils :
Jaipur District :
Twelve tehsils of Jaipur district viz. Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jaipur, Sanganer, Bassi, Dudu, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar, Jamva Ramgarh and Dausa were surveyed to know the underground water quality(Vyas et.al,1993). Range of chemical characteristics is reported in table 1. Percentage of samples of tehsil of Jaipur district falling into different pH, EC, RSC and SAR ranges are reported in table 2.
pH :
All the samples analysed fell in the pH range of 7.0 to 9.0 (Table 2). 49.7 percent samples had pH between 7.0 to 8.0 and 51.3 percent samples fell in the pH range of 8.0 to 9.0. About 12.1, 73.2 and 14.7 percent samples had pH<7.5, 7.5-8.5 and >8.5, respectively.
EC :
EC of 79.5 percent samples was less than 4 dSm-1 and about 62.5 percent samples had EC less than 2.0 dSm-1. In case of Bassi, Dausa, Dudu, Phagi and Sambhar Tehsils, more than 10 percent samples had EC>6 dSm-1.
RSC :
Except Sanganer, Bassi and Sambhar Tehsils, more than 54 percent samples had RSC < 2.5 meL-1 and about 7.5 to 27.1 percent samples had RSC between 2.5 to 5.0 meL-1. Sanganer and Sambhar Tehsils had more than 40 percent samples having RSC > 5.0 meL-1. On an average 57.8, 19.5, 15.0 and 7.5 percent of total samples had RSC < 2.5, 2.5-5.0, 5.0-10.0 and > 10.0 meL-1, respectively.
SAR :
In Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jamva Ramgarh and Jaipur Tehsils more than 80 percent samples had SAR value of < 10. Sanganer, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar and Dausa Tehsils had 34.4 to 41.5 percent samples having SAR between 10 to 20. In Sambhar and Dudu Tehsils more than 30 percent samples had SAR>20.
On an average 35.5 percent water samples had none of the problem and hence, were of good quality (Table 3). The range of good quality water in different Tehsils, however varies from 11.0 in Dudu and 65.2 percent in Amber Tehsil. In Viratnagar, Amber, Jamva Ramgarh and Jaipur Tehsils, percentage of good quality water was above 50. In Kotputali and Chaksu it was about 37.7 percent and it was low in Bassi, Sanganer, Phagi and Dudu Tehsils and the lowest in Sambhar Tehsil (7.4%).
In general there was low problem of salinity of water and also sodicity alone. The results showed that there was problem of RSC, which was as high as 69.8 percent samples in Sanganer followed by Sambhar (58.0%) and Bassi (54.2%) Tehsils. In other Tehsils it was in the narrow range of 33 to 42 percent. There was both salinity and sodicity problem in Dudu Tehsil (42.6%).
There was a severe problem (> 50%) of soil alkalinity in Viratnagar (72.9%) and Phagi (64.9%) Tehsils, moderate (25 to 50%) problem in Sambhar (46.7%), Jaipur (36.1%), Dudu (36.0%) and Chaksu (32.8%) Tehsils and slight problem in Bassi (23.7%), Amber (20.3%), Dausa (18.7%), Kotputali (11.3%) and Jamva Ramgarh (10.4%) Tehsils (Table 4). Severe problem of soil salinity was observed in Phagi (61.4%) Tehsil while it was moderate in Dudu (32.6%) Tehsil and slight in Tehsils of Chaksu (24.6%), Sambhar (16.6%), Bassi (15.3%) and Dausa (14.6%).
Bikaner district :
Survey of underground waters of non-command area of Nokha, Kolayat, Loonkaransar and Bikaner Tehsils of Bikaner District revealed that water table of tubewells varied from 36 to 208 m. EC and pH of tubewell waters varied from 0.8 to 10.3 dSm-1 and 7.1 to 9.0, respectively. Range of chemical characteristics of tubewell/openwell waters in Bikaner District is reported in table 5. The percent distribution of water samples in different ranges of EC and RSC is given in table 6 and depicted in fig.-1. 81.3, 16.3 and 2.4 percent of samples had RSC < 2.5, 2.5 to 5.0 and >5.0 meL-1, respectively. On an average 32.6, 16.3, 17.4, 12.8, 4.1, 9.3, 4.1 and 3.4 percent samples were categorized as good, marginally saline, High-SAR saline, High-SAR non-saline, saline, marginally alkali, alkali and highly alkali, respectively. About 11.1, 42.9, 29.7 and 16.3 percent of the samples recorded salinity <1.0, 1-2, 2-4 and >4.0 dSm-1, respectively. The waters are mostly Na-Mg-Ca type with dominance of chloride followed by carbonates+bicarbonates
Analysis of surface soil samples collected from the fields irrigated with corresponding water revealed that EC of all the soil samples is < 1 dSm-1 and soil is alkaline in nature. Correlation studies revealed that EC of soil is positively and significantly correlated with ECiw (r=0.411**) and potential salinity of irrigation water (r=0.465**). Correlation between SARiw and SAR of soil was found positive (r=0.206) but non-significant. It might be due to the fact that most of the wells are operating since 1992 and onward only.













Table1:Range of chemical characteristics of Tubewells/Open well waters of various Tehsils of Jaipur District
Chemical Characteristics J a i p u r D i s t r i c t
Kotputali (53)* Viratnagar (70) Amber (207) Jaipur (107) Sanganer (53) Bassi (59)
pH
EC (dSm-1)
Ca++ (meL-1)
Mg++ ( ” )
Na+ ( ” )
K+ ( ” )
CO3-2+HCO3-1(”)
Cl-1 ( ” )
RSC ( ” )
SAR 7.0-9.0
0.6-7.0
2.4-22.2**
--
1.0-47.2
0.1-2.0
4.0-16.0
0.8-52.2
Nil-12.4
0.7-19.8 7.3-8.8
0.9-7.0
1.4-22.6**
--
1.0-46.0
0.1-0.5
4.0-18.0
0.8-47.0
Nil-11.0
0.6-15.2 7.2-9.0
0.4-2.9
0.2-4.0
0.0-10.0
1.0-24.0
--
1.8-10.0
0.0-156.0
Nil-11.9
0.6-21.9 7.1-8.2
0.5-6.1
0.2-0.6
0.4-15.7
1.0-41.0
0.01-1.0
1.6-16.0
0.8-46.2
Nil-18.2
0.4-30.8 7.0-8.7
0.6-6.5
0.6-15.6**
--
1.0-54.2
0.1-0.5
3.2-27.0
1.0-46.6
Nil-19.2
0.6-25.5 7.3-8.8
0.5-21.5
0.8-71.4**
--
1.0-140.0
--
3.3-20.6
1.0-182.4
Nil-20.6
0.6-26.1
Dudu (209) Phagi (59) Chaksu (61) Sambhar (162) Jamva Ramgarh (48) Dausa (53)
pH
EC (dSm-1)
Ca++ (meL-1)
Mg++ ( ” )
Na+ ( ” )
K+ ( ” )
CO3-2+HCO3-1( ”)
Cl-1 ( ” )
RSC ( ” )
SAR 7.1-8.9
0.5-17.6
0.2-0.3
1.5-68.4
1.6-156.0
--
tr-43.0
1.0-158.5
Nil-20.6
1.1-97.8 7.2-8.9
0.7-12.0
2.2-69.6**
--
2.0-84.5
0.1-0.40
4.9-26.4
1.0-120.6
Nil-19.4
1.2-29.3 7.3-8.7
0.6-8.2
1.6-57.6**
--
2.5-46.6
--
3.4-17.4
2.2-53.0
Nil-12.1
1.3-18.3 7.0-8.4
0.6-41.6
0.5-21.5**
6.0-57.0
3.0-260.0
--
4.0-40.0
1.0-235.0
Nil-36.5
1.5-52.0 7.4-8.8
0.4-2.3
3.0-11.1**
--
1.2-72.0
--
2.5-17.5
1.5-66.0
Nil-12.4
0.6-16.8 7.0-8.8
0.6-10.0
tr-35.0**
--
3.5-102.2
--
2.2-20.6
2.0-118.0
Nil-19.6
2.0-41.8
* Number of samples tested ** Figures are of Ca + Mg

Table 2 :Percentage of samples of Tehsils of Jaipur District falling into different pH, EC, RSC & SAR ranges
Tehsils pH range EC range (meL-1)
7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5 > 8.5 < 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 > 8
Kotputali
Viratnagar
Amber
Jaipur
Sanganer
Bassi
Dudu
Phagi
Chaksu
Sambhar
Jamva Ramgarh
Dausa 1.9
2.9
6.8
22.4
3.8
13.6
9.6
11.9
14.8
34.6
4.2
17.0 13.2
28.4
20.3
59.8
52.8
30.2
43.5
62.7
49.2
48.8
22.9
34.0 56.6
57.2
28.5
16.9
33.9
32.2
37.8
20.3
32.8
16.6
66.6
41.5 28.3
11.4
44.4
0.9
9.4
23.9
9.1
5.1
3.3
--
6.3
7.5 64.2
91.4
96.6
88.8
69.8
61.0
14.5
39.7
52.5
29.6
91.7
62.2 22.6
7.1
3.4
2.8
24.5
20.0
24.6
36.2
37.7
30.8
6.3
17.0 7.5
--
--
7.5
3.8
13.6
26.6
13.8
6.6
15.4
2.0
11.3 5.7
1.4
--
0.9
1.9
1.9
14.5
5.2
1.6
10.5
--
5.7 --
--
--
--
--
3.4
19.7
5.2
1.6
13.7
--
3.8
Average 12.1 37.6 35.6 14.7 62.5 17.0 10.0 4.9 5.6
Tehsils RSC (meL-1) range SAR range
< 2.5 2.5 - 5.0 5 - 10 > 10 < 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 > 30
Kotputali
Viratnagar
Amber
Jaipur
Sanganer
Bassi
Dudu
Phagi
Chaksu
Sambhar
Jamva Ramgarh
Dausa 60.4
67.1
66.2
57.0
30.2
45.8
64.3
57.6
62.3
37.7
58.3
54.7 20.8
21.4
22.2
27.1
7.5
17.0
13.9
22.0
18.0
18.2
25.0
15.1 13.2
10.0
11.0
14.0
24.5
27.1
16.9
13.6
18.0
22.0
10.4
17.0 5.7
1.4
1.9
1.9
37.7
10.1
4.8
6.8
1.6
22.0
6.3
13.2 79.2
90.0
91.3
82.6
54.7
67.8
27.8
52.5
65.6
37.1
83.3
37.7 20.8
8.6
7.7
11.6
41.5
28.8
28.8
39.0
34.4
34.6
14.6
41.5 --
1.4
1.0
2.9
3.8
3.4
20.0
8.5
--
17.0
--
13.2 --
--
--
2.0
--
--
23.4
--
--
13.3
2.1
7.6
Average 57.8 19.5 15.0 7.7 62.9 23.8 7.2 6.1

Table 3 : Classification of irrigation waters of some Tehsils of Jaipur District
Water quality Criteria Kotputali Viratnagar Amber Jaipur Sanganer Bassi
EC (dSm-1) SAR RSC (meL-1) (53)** (70) (207) (107) (53) (59)
A Good
B Marginally saline
C Saline
D Saline sodic
E1 RSC water
E2 RSC water < 2
2 - 4
> 4
> 4
< 4
< 4 < 10
< 10
< 10
> 10
< 10
> 10 < 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
> 2.5
> 2.5 37.7
9.4
3.8
9.4
13.2
26.4 61.4
4.3
0.0
1.4
27.1
5.7 65.2
0.5
0.0
0.5
26.1
7.7 52.3
0.0
0.0
4.7
33.6
9.3 22.6
1.0
0.0
5.7
30.2
39.6 30.5
1.7
3.4
10.2
32.2
22.0

Water quality Criteria Dudu Phagi Chaksu Sambhar Jamva Ramgarh Dausa Mean
EC (dSm-1) SAR RSC (meL-1) (209) (59) (61) (162) (48) (53)
A Good
B Marginally saline
C Saline
D Saline sodic
E1 RSC water
E2 RSC water < 2
2 - 4
> 4
> 4
< 4
< 4 < 10
< 10
< 10
> 10
< 10
> 10 < 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
> 2.5
> 2.5 11.0
10.5
0.5
42.6
17.2
18.2 22.0
13.6
5.1
17.0
16.9
25.4 37.7
13.1
3.3
8.2
16.4
21.3 7.4
5.5
1.9
27.2
22.2
35.8 54.2
0.0
0.0
4.2
29.1
12.5 24.5
5.7
0.0
22.6
7.6
39.6 35.5
5.4
1.6
12.8
22.6
22.0
** Number of samples tested.

Table 4 :Classification of soils of different Tehsils of Jaipur Districts based on pH and EC (Vyas et al,1993)
Characteristics Kotputali Viratnagar Bassi Chaksu Jamva Ramgarh Dausa Sambhar Dudu Jaipur Amber Phagi Sanganer
pH < 8.5
> 8.5
EC < 4.0
> 4.0
Total Samples 88.7
11.3
94.3
5.7
53.0 27.1
72.9
97.1
2.9
70.0 76.3
23.7
84.8
15.3
65.0 67.2
32.8
75.4
24.6
61.0 89.6
10.4
97.9
2.1
48.0 81.3
18.7
85.4
14.6
48.0 53.3
46.7
83.4
16.6
139.0 64.0
36.0
68.4
32.6
114.0 63.9
36.1
95.4
4.6
108.0 79.7
20.3
98.6
1.4
207.0 35.1
64.9
38.6
61.4
57.0 90.6
8.4
92.4
7.5
53.0

Table 5 : Range of chemical characteristics of tube well/open well waters in Bikaner District
Chemical Characteristics Range of characteristics Bikaner District as a whole
Nokha Kolayat Loonkaransar Bikaner
pH
EC (dSm-1)
CO3-2 + HCO3-1 (meL-1)
Cl-1 (meL-1)
SO4-2 ( ” )
Ca++ ( ” )
Mg++ ( ” )
Na+ ( ” )
K+ ( ” )
RSC ( ” )
SAR
Adj. SAR
SSP 7.1-8.8
1.0-6.1
2.5-12.5
2.0-55.8
0-7.0
0.4-14.7
0.9-12.8
7.6-37.6
0.03-1.03
Nil-8.1
3.3-22.4
8.4-43.9
28.0-91.3 7.5-8.8
0.8-10.3
2.5-8.4
1.6-101.0
0.1-10.8
0.5-7.5
0.9-18.9
6.6-78.2
0.1-0.6
Nil-5.8
4.7-30.8
7.9-58.2
47.9-90.2 7.6-8.7
2.3-7.9
3.0-5.8
18.6-55.2
--
1.4-8.6
2.9-7.2
21.5-84.0
0.1-0.4
Nil-4.2
12.9-27.4
25.8-68.8
78.6-88.9 8.0-9.9
0.8-7.7
1.6-7.8
3.7-44.2
Nil-31.9
0.3-3.8
0.4-11.8
5.6-65.5
0.1-0.2
Nil-4.8
5.3-41.8
9.3-73.2
60.1-95.1 7.1-9.0
0.8-10.3
1.6-12.5
1.6-101.0
Nil-31.9
0.3-14.7
0.4-18.9
5.6-84.0
0.03-0.6
Nil-8.1
3.3-41.8
7.9-73.2
28.0-95.1





Table 6 : Percentage distribution of water samples in different ranges of EC and RSC
RSC (meL-1) EC (dSm-1)
<1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 > 4 Total
Nokha Tehsil
< 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
> 7.5 --
--
--
-- 48.4
9.7
--
1.6 17.7
1.6
1.6
-- 11.3
--
--
1.6 6.5
--
--
-- 83.9
11.3
1.6
3.2
Kolayat Tehsil
< 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5 3.0
3.0
3.0 27.3
18.2
-- 12.1
--
-- 12.1
--
-- 21.2
--
-- 5.7
21.2
3.0
Loonkaransar Tehsil
< 2.5 -- -- 33.3 46.7 20.0 100.0
Bikaner Tehsil
< 2.5
2.5 - 5.0 24.2
1.6 19.4
16.1 11.3
1.6 3.2
-- 19.4
3.2 77.5
22.5
Bikaner District as whole
< 2.5
2.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
> 7.5 9.3
1.2
0.6
-- 29.6
12.7
--
0.6 15.7
1.2
0.6
-- 11.6
--
--
0.6 15.1
1.2
--
-- 81.3
16.3
1.2
1.2
11.1 42.9 17.5 12.2 16.3 100.0

Churu Distrist:
Survey and characterization of underground waters of Sridungargarh and sardarshahar tehsils of Churu district was done during 1997-98. A total of 87 water samples from 59 villages in Sri Dungargarh tehsil and 93 water samples from 64 villages of Sardarshar tehsil were collected and analysed. The percent distribution of water quality in both the tehsils is given in table 7 and depicted in Figure 2.
In Sridungargarh Tehsil, 72.4,11.5, 1.1,6.9,3.4 and 4.6 percent samples fell under good , marginally saline, saline, high-SAR saline, marginally alkali and highly alkali, respectively. About 87.3, 8.0, 2.3 and 2.3 percent samples had RSC< 2.5 , 2.5 to 5.0, 5.0-7.5 and >7.5 me/L,respectively. About 43.6, 34.6, 20.6 and 1.1 percent of the samples recorded salinity < 1.0, 1-2,2-4 and > 4.0 dS/m, respectively (Table 8). EC and pH of waters ranged from 0.37 to 4.07 dS/m and 7.8 to 9.2, respectively. Sodium and chloride ions are the dominant cation and anion respectively.
In Sardarshahar tehsil, 11.8, 6.5, 3.2, 32.3, 7.5,1.1 and 37.6 percent samples were found under good, marginally saline, saline, high SAR-saline , marginally alkali, alkali and high alkali, respectively. 53.7,17.2,15.1 and 14.0 percent samples had RSC <2.5, 2.5-5.0, 5.0-7.5 and > 7.5 me/L, respectively . About 5.4, 11.9, 57.9 and 24.8 percent of the samples showed salinity < 1.0, 1-2, 2-4 and > 4.0 dS/m, respectively. The water is Na:Mg:Ca type with dominated chloride anion.
Table 7: Distribution (Percent) of water quality claqsses in Churu District
Water quality Sri Dungargarh(87)* Sardar Sahar(93)
EC SAR RSC
1. Good
2 10 2.5
2. Marginally saline
2-4 10 2.5
3. Saline
4.0 10 2.5
4. High SAR Saline
4.0 10 2.5
5. Marginally Alkali
4.0 10 2.5
6. Alkali
4.0 10 2.5-4.0
7. High Alkali
Variable 10 >4.0
72.4

11.5

1.1

6.9

3.4

--

4.6
11.8

5.4

3.2

33.3

7.5

1.1

37.6
*Figures in parenthesis indicated number of samples analysed.
Table : 8 Distribution (percent) of water samples in different ranges of EC and RSC in Churu District
RSC . EC(dSm-1) .
(meL-1) < 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 > 4 Total
Sridungargarh Tehsil
< 2.5 42.5 26.5 10.3 6.9 1.1 87.3
2.5 - 5.0 1.1 3.5 2.3 1.1 -- 8.0
5.0 - 7.5 -- 2.3 -- -- -- 2.3
>7.5 -- 2.3 -- -- -- 2.3
Sardar Shahar Tehsil
<2.5 3.2 5.4 12.9 9.6 22.6 53.7
2.5-5.0 2.2 3.2 7.5 4.3 - 17.2
5.0-7.5 - 2.2 9.6 1.1 2.2 15.1
>7.5 - 1.1 11.8 1.1 - 14.0

2. Soil and Fertility Management for Crop Production :
Soil amendments studies revealed that incorporation of Dhamasa (Tephrosia purpuria) and Subabool (Lencaena eucocephala) to soil showed promising results in reducting the deleterious effect of continuous use of saline water (8 dSm-1) on different crops viz; chickpea (11.85 and 11.10 q/ha), methi (20.16 and 19.02 q/ha) and cluster bean (5.24 and 5.68 q/ha) (Table 9). Incorporation of organic amendments like Dhamasa (N=1.85%, P=0.26%, K=1.7%, Ca=2.6% and O.C=0.36%) and subabool also showed improvement in soil chemical properties (Table 10)
Table 9 : Effect of organic amendments on grain yield of various crops under saline water irrigation
Treatments G r a i n Y i e l d ( q / ha )
C h i c k p e a M e t h i C l u s t e r b e a n
84-85 85-86 86-87 Mean 88-89 89-90 Mean 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 8 Mean
Control
FYM 10 t/ha
Subabbol (leaves) @ 5t/ha
N equal 5to Dhamasa
Dhamasa @ 5t/ha
SEm±
SD at 5% 2.83
4.58
5.64
3.62
5.73
0.64
1.73 5.44
6.75
7.39
7.12
10.69
0.75
2.29 10.83
13.48
16.26
12.32
19.12
1.23
3.79 6.37
8.27
11.10
7.69
11.85
0.91
2.80 16.00
14.00
14.00
15.20
14.40
--
NS 20.33
22.00
24.04
22.79
25.92
0.63
2.20 18.16
18.00
19.02
19.00
20.16
--
-- 3.20
5.40
8.40
4.20
6.20
1.00
2.69 4.13
5.53
7.87
4.91
6.06
0.32
0.98 1.60
2.27
4.35
2.40
6.04
0.66
2.06 2.11
2.83
3.39
2.72
3.86
0.35
NS 3.76
4.70
4.38
4.08
4.04
0.42
NS 2.96
4.15
5.68
3.66
5.24
0.61
1.90

Table 10 : Effect of organic amendments on pH, EC (dSm-1) and soluble sodium (meL-1)
of soil after clusterbean and chickpea
Treatments 1985-86 1986-87 Mean
pH EC Na+ pH EC Na+ pH EC Na+
After clusterbean
Control
FYM
Subabool
N equal to Dhamasa
Dhamasa 8.1
7.9
7.7
7.8

7.7 0.98
0.70
0.65
0.80

0.55 6.2
4.4
4.0
4.2

2.4 8.4
8.2
8.2
8.3

8.2 0.47
0.22
0.32
0.41

0.29 3.5
1.2
2.0
3.0

1.0 8.3
8.1
8.0
8.1

8.0 0.73
0.46
0.49
0.60

0.42 4.9
2.8
3.0
3.6

1.7
After chickpea
(Vyas et al,1989)
Control
FYM
Subabool
N equal to Dhamasa
Dhamasa 8.1
8.0
8.0
8.1

7.8 1.25
1.10
0.98
1.00

0.90 4.0
3.0
3.4
5.0

4.2 8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2

8.1 0.46
0.30
0.26
0.29

0.30 3.0
1.8
1.6
2.2

2.0 8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2

8.0 0.86
0.70
0.62
0.65

0.60 3.5
2.4
2.5
3.6

3.1
9 :


B. Use of gypsum and other amendments :
Two years studies (1983 and 1984) showed that application of gypsum or pyrite at ½GR gave maximum increase in the grain yield of wheat by over 10 q/ha and decreased the pH and ESP of sodic soil as compared to the untreated control. Addition of FYM @10 t/ha also independently increased the wheat yield significantly but the increase was not to the level of chemical amendments. The gypsum or pyrite application proved significantly superior to organics RSC of irrigation water used was 13.0 meL-1 (Table 11).
Table 11 :Effect of addition of Amendments on the grain yield of wheat and associated pH and EC changes
Treatments Grain yield (q/ha) Soil properties
1983-84 1984-85 Pooled pH(1:2) ESP
Control
Gypsum @¼ GR
Gypsum @¼ GR+FYM @10 t/ha
Gypsum @½ GR
Gypsum @½ GR+FYM @10 t/ha
GM Dhaincha
FYM @10 t/ha
Pyrites @½ GR (4 t/ha)
Pyrites @½ GR+FYM 10 t/ha
SEm±
CD at 5% 14.00
22.00
22.85
27.76
29.82
20.28
20.66
27.32
28.62
1.62
3.70 10.00
13.50
13.75
16.75
18.50
12.67
13.75
17.00
18.40
1.10
3.30 12.00
17.75
18.30
22.25
24.16
16.97
17.20
22.16
23.50
1.55
4.41 9.78
9.24
9.18
9.19
9.14
9.22
9.19
9.22
9.18
0.12
0.36 23.76
21.00
20.53
21.00
20.35
20.44
21.75
20.40
20.36
0.32
0.96

Experiment conducted at Asalpur farm, Jobner during 1981-82 and 1982-83 on soil having pH 8.9 and ESP 31.6 revealed that application of 50% GR is suitable and economic dose of gypsum for getting good yields of barley and wheat in sodic soil after incorporation of dhaincha green manuring (Table 12). The changes in soil properties are given in table 13.





Table 12 : Effect of different levels of soil amendments on grain yield (q/ha)of wheat and barley after dhaincha green manuring
Treatments Wheat Barley
1981-82 1982-83 Mean 1981-82 1982-83 Mean
T1 - Gypsum 25% GR
T2 - Gypsum 50% GR
T3 - FYM (10 t/ha)
T4 - FYM (20 t/ha)
T5 - T1 + T2
T6 - T2 + T3
T7 - T1 + T4
T8 - T2 + T4
T9 - control
SEm±
CD at 5% 39.90
38.93
39.01
33.82
40.10
40.64
39.82
34.55
34.06
2.10
NS 39.4
40.9
30.7
39.9
37.6
40.6
45.2
40.7
36.7
2.54
6.56 39.65
39.91
34.95
36.86
38.85
40.62
42.51
37.62
35.38
2.33
6.29 42.58
42.26
30.82
36.34
37.39
38.93
42.02
39.18
26.76
3.02
7.30 41.25
48.62
55.00
41.00
38.62
55.37
48.00
53.25
37.00
5.05
13.63 41.91
45.44
42.91
38.67
38.00
47.15
45.01
46.21
31.88--

Table 13 : Soil properties as influenced by soil amendments after harvest of crops
Treatment Wheat Barley
1981-82 1982-83 1981-82 1982-83
pH Na+ (meL-1) pH Na+ (meL-1) pH Na+ (meL-1) pH Na+ (meL-1)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9 8.5
8.4
8.6
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.2
8.6
8.7 3.1
3.1
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.3
3.0
3.8 8.0
7.8
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.4
8.5 2.5
3.4
2.8
3.5
3.3
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.0 8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.5
8.3
8.6
8.8 3.0
3.4
3.0
3.6
3.2
3.5
2.7
3.4
3.9 8.6
8.0
8.4
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.6
8.3
8.6 3.8
3.6
3.3
4.3
3.6
4.3
3.3
3.4
5.8


Efforts have been made to elucidate the possibility of utilizing organic materials from some wild herbs and shurbs on salt affected soils by Gupta and Karan (1984 and 1985). They observed that Tephrosia purpuria a leguminous herb is most effective among six organic materials tested because of its fast decomposing rate . Organic materials increased exchangeable Ca++ + Mg++ and decreased exchangeable Na+, CaCO3, EC and pH of alkali and saline alkali soil. Their results showed progressive reclaimation with increasing incorporation of organic material in form of wild herbs and shurbs.(Table 14)
Table 14 : Effect of adding different plant materials to soil with varying chemical properties
Plants Exchangeable
Ca+++Mg++
(me/100g) Exchangeable
Na+
(me/100g) CaCO3 EC (dS/m) pH
T1 Tephroisa purpuria control
@1.5%
9.3
12.6
15.0
12.0
2,7
1.5
1.7
1.0
8.5
8.1
T2


T3 Crotaleria burhia
Control
@1.5%
Leptadenia pyrotechnica
control
@1.5%
9.4
12.0

9.6
11.5
15.0
12.7

15.0
13.2
2.6
1.7

2.7
1.8
1.7
1.0

1.7
1.1
8.5
8.2

8.5
8.2
T4 Vernania cinerea
control
@1.5%
9.4
11.8
15.0
13.0
2.8
2.0
1.7
1.1
8.5
8.2
T5 Aerva pseudotomentosa
control
@1.5%
9.4
11.6
15.0
13.0
2.7
1.8
1.7
1.1
8.5
8.2
T6 Cassia auriculata
control
@1.5%
C.D.at 5%
9.5
12.2
0.23
5.0
12.4
NS
2.7
1.9
0.08
1.7
1.0
0.05
8.5
8.1
NS
Cassia auriculata (a weed, having pH 5.5, N,P,K and Ca as 1.3 , 0.05, 0.56 and 3.0% respectively), when applied with gypsum proved a very effective ameoliorative effect in reclaiming sodic soil. Gypsum equivalent to ¼ GR, could be saved by combining organic materials like Cassia auriculata, Cowdung and FYM. Significant reduction in pH and ESP olf soil was observed whereas hydraulic conductivity increased due to application of gypsum with organic amendments (Table 15). Table 15 :Effect of amendments on yield of barley and soil properties
Treatments Grain yield(q/ha) pH2 ESP HC(cm/hr)
Control 3.36 9.2 55.4 0.0
Gypsum @ 50% GR 12.97 8.3 19.6 2.7
Gypsum @ 25% GR+ Sand 20t/ha 10.18 8.6 37.4 2.3
Gypsum @ 25% GR + Cowdung @ 20t/ha 11.07 8.5 28.0 1.4
Gypsum @ 25% GR + FYM 10t/ha 15.25 8.5 15.0 2.8
Gypsum @ 25% GR + Cassia auriculata 14.89 8.2 12.7 2.9
CD at 5% 5.66 0.3 13.4 2.2

A field studies conducted for two years in a saline sodic soil (pH 9.2-9.3, ECe 4.8-5.5 dS/m, RSC 7.3 me/l and SAR 15) revealed that the grain yield of wheat and pearlmillet were significantly sup;erior in gypsum treatment @ 50% GR as compared to control (Keshwa and Singh, 1988). The highest net returns were obtained with the application of gypsum @ 50% GR and lowest under FYM @ 25 t/ha(Table 16).
Table 16: Effect of amendments on yield and net returns of wheat and pearl millet

Treatments Yield ( t / hectare) Net return(Rs/ha)
Wheat Pearlmillet
Control 1.97 0.43 2382
FYM @25t/ha 2.40 0.60 2180
Gypsum@25% GR 2.41 0.76 3410
Gypsum @50%GR 2.77 0.84 4072
Pyrite@25%GR 1.19 0.73 2925
Pyrite@50%GR 2.47 0.82 3330
CD at 5% 0.17 0.09

Application of organic and inorganic amendments increased grain yield of wheat. Application of gypsum @ 50 % GR proved to be the best treatment followed by pyrite @ 50% GR with respect to produce grain yield of wheat during both the years. Uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus increased with the reclamation of salt affected soils . Maximum uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus was recorded with gypsum @ 50% GR followed by pyrite @ 50% GR(Keshwa and Singh,1988) ESP and pHs values of soil decreased due to application of amendments. On the basis of general effect of various amendments in reclaiming the salt affected soils these could be arranged in order of effectiveness: gypsum 50%GR> pyrite 50%GR>gypsum 25%GR>FYM 25t/ha>pyrite 25%GR>control (Table 17).
Table 17: Effect of amendments on soil characteristics and yield of wheat
Treatments ECe(dS/m) pHs ESP Yield(q/ha) Nutrient uptake(kg/ha)
A* B A B A B A B N P
Control 4.75 5.59 9.3 9.2 30.0 28.9 18.57 20.73 65.3 12.5
FYM @ 25t/ha) 4.53 5.35 8.9 8.9 25.0 23.7 23.09 24.96 73.3 16.3
Gypsum @ 25% GR 4.51 5.30 8.8 8.9 23.4 22.9 23.65 24.46 73.0 16.1
Gypsum @ 50%GR 4.55 5.20 8.7 8.8 21.3 20.4 27.11 28.33 79.5 19.3
Pyrites @ 25% GR 4.56 5.26 8.9 8.9 24.4 24.3 20.97 22.86 69.6 15.5
Pyrites @ 50%GR 4.55 5.28 8.8 8.9 23.4 22.7 24.34 25.05 73.9 16.9
CD at 5% NS NS 0.35 0.23 2.5 1.8 2.27 2.49 6.0 1.6
A :1983-84 B : 1984-85 (Keshwa & singh, 1988)
Mustard :
Three years study revealed that application of gypsum @ ½ GR (5t/ha) with NP gave significantly higher grain yield and oil content of mustard in soil irrigated with high RSC water as compared to control (without amendments). Pyrite was found superior to gypsum (Table 18).



Table 18 : Effect of gypsum and pyrites on grain yield and oil content of mustard.
Treatments Grain yield (q/ha) Oil content (%)
1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
T1 - Control 7.16 5.05 7.52 34.3 28.0 33.6
T2 - N + P (60+30) 9.13 9.07 10.17 37.4 33.9 36.6
T3 - T2 + Gypsum @ 5t/ha 11.13 13.05 14.04 38.0 36.5 40.1
T4 - T2 + Pyrite @ 4t/ha 10.63 10.92 11.17 38.3 36.2 39.3
CD at 5% 0.98 2.89 1.87 2.2 2.4 1.7
(Water pH 8.7, EC 2.2 dS/m, SAR-19, RSC-10.9 me/l)
Somani and saxena (1981a) reported that sulphur takes a period of 2-3 months for its oxidation and for coming in chemical equilibrium comparable to that of gypsum. This suggest that the slowness of sulphur as an alkali ameliorant could be compensated by applying it in advance to permit its oxidation. This led Somani (1980) and Somani and Saxena (1982) to record better ameliorating influence of sulphur as compared to gypsum. The ameliorating efficiency of sulphur is considerably improved if used in conjuction with organic material (Table 19) possibly because organic matter hastens the activity of heterotropic sulphur oxidizers in soil besides improving soil physical properties (Somani and Saxena, 1981b)
Table 19 : Effect of organic materials and inorganic amendments on some physicasl and chemical properties of calcareous saline alkali soil and yield of wheat.
Treatments pH EC(dS/m) Organic Carbon
(%) ESP Biological Index Structural Index Wheat
yield
(q/ha)
Control
9.30
12.6 0.18 26.8 31.5 7.3 6.01
Gypsum 8.95 10.9 0.21 21.2 37.7 12.1 11.65
Sulphur 8.80 10.1 0.27 19.5 39.3 15.0 13.21
FYM 9.20 12.2 0.31 24.9 35.1 8.8 8.94
FYM + Gypsum 8.82 10.1 0.39 19.2 40.3 13.8 18.74
FYM + Sulphur 8.70 8.2 0.45 17.7 45.8 16.1 20.86
Dhaincha (DA) 8.85 10.4 0.28 21.4 37.2 12.5 11.45
DA + Gypsum 8.70 9.8 0.30 16.3 45.9 17.9 21.13
DA+ Sulphur 8.40 6.8 0.33 13.8 51.1 23.2 24.13
Poultry Manure(PM) 9.20 11.8 0.30 24.9 34.7 9.6 8.00
PM + Gypsum 8.75 10.6 0.37 18.4 39.2 15.2 16.90
PM + Sulphur 8.60 7.9 0.41 15.7 44.6 17.4 18.69
Rice husk (RH) 9.15 11.7 0.30 24.7 34.1 9.5 7.26
RH + Gypsum 8.80 9.9 0.32 16.7 38.9 14.2 15.05
RH + Sulphur 8.65 7.3 0.38 16.2 43.8 19.5 17.0
CD at 5% 0.20 1.5 0.02 2.6 3.8 0.96 1.46

Sodic soil (pH 9.9) irrigated with high RSC water (16 meL-1) and amended with gypsum @75% GR was superior to other treatments like gypsum 50%, FYM 10 t/ha, FYM 20 t/ha or their combinations giving an average yield of 30.46 q/ha (Table 20). Residual effect of 1987-88 studied in 1988-89 revealed that maximum yield was obtained in the treatment where gypsum @ 50% GR was applied.


Table 20 :Effect of soil amendments and residual on grain yield (q/ha) of wheat
Treatments Grain yield Residual effect
1986-87 1987-88 Mean 1988-89
T1 - control
T2 - Gypsum 50% GR
T3 - Gypsum 75% GR
T4 - FYM 10 t/ha
T5 - FYM 20 t/ha
T6 - T2 + T4
T7 - T3 + T4
T8 - T2 + T5
T9 - T3 + T5
SEm±
CD at 5% 25.00
27.00
27.00
25.50
26.00
27.50
34.20
30.00
35.70
1.70
4.15 3.00
24.50
33.93
4.43
1.43
27.25
33.25
24.12
31.62
3.64
7.52 14.00
25.75
30.46
14.96
13.71
27.37
33.72
27.06
33.66
--
-- 6.00
17.65
15.30
7.75
8.00
14.75
16.87
12.68
17.18
2.14
5.35
Pearlmillet
Pearlmillet yield increased tremendously with addition of ½ GR gypsum alongwith FYM as compared to FYM and gypsum alone in both the years when the crop was irrigated with water having high RSC of 13 meL-1. The yields during 1988-89 is less as compared to 1986-87 on account of lodging of crop at tasselling stage due to strong wind storm with rain (Table 21).
Wheat
Wheat yield significantly increased with gypsum alone or combination with FYM as compared to control or FYM alone, when the crop was irrigated with high RSC (13 meL-1) water (Table 22). The residual effect on soil revealed that addition of FYM and gypsum reduced the pH of the soil.(Singhania et.al ,1991) They concluded that a soil deteriorated with continuous use of high RSC water, gypsum can be successfully used. Since there is fast decrease in the residual effect as compared to first year , application of gypsum only once is not enough for long effect and certain amount of gypsum need to be added each year or once in two years to maintain the productivity of soil.(Table 23).




Table 22 : Effect of soil amendments on yield (q/ha) of pearlmillet and wheat
Treatments Prealmillet Wheat grain
1986-87 1988-89 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Mean
Grain Straw Grain Straw
T1 - control
T2 -Gypsum 50% GR
T3 -Gypsum 75% GR
T4 - FYM 10 t/ha
T5 - FYM 20 t/ha
T6 - T2 + T4
T7 - T3 + T4
T8 - T2 + T5
T9 - T3 + T5
SEm±
CD at 5% 3.36
3.51
4.26
5.56
4.71
3.76
5.90
6.00
7.48
0.10
0.31 19.16
24.33
27.16
30.41
32.00
32.41
37.30
38.50
43.30
0.52
1.54 0.45
0.19
0.17
0.21
0.02
1.02
1.84
1.60
1.24
--
-- 10.0
22.5
30.0
12.5
13.8
33.8
41.3
35.0
48.8
--
-- 25.0
27.0
27.0
25.5
26.0
27.5
34.2
30.0
35.7
1.4
4.2 3.0
24.5
33.9
4.4
1.4
27.3
34.3
24.1
31.6
3.6
7.5 6.0
17.7
15.3
7.8
8.0
14.8
16.9
12.7
17.2
2.1
5.4 11.3
23.1
25.4
12.6
11.8
23.2
28.5
22.3
28.2
--
--

Table 23 :Residual effect of FYM and gypsum on salt status of soil irrigated with high RSC (13.0 meL-1) water after harvesting of wheat, 1988-89
Treatments Soil depth
. .
1987-88 1988-89
0 - 15 15 - 30 0-15 15-30
pH2 EC2 (dSm-1) pH2 EC2 (dSm-1) pH2 EC2
(dSm-1) pH2 EC2
(dSm-1)
T1 - control
T2 -Gypsum 50% GR
T3 -Gypsum 75% GR
T4 - FYM 10 t/ha
T5 - FYM 20 t/ha
T6 - T2 + T4
T7 - T3 + T4
T8 - T2 + T5
T9 - T3 + T5 9.1
9.1
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.0
8.8
8.8
9.0 0.50
0.43
0.49
0.47
0.43
0.45
0.48
0.46
0.45 9.1
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
9.0
9.0 0.40
0.49
0.47
0.43
0.47
0.57
0.50
0.47
0.34 9.9
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.0
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7 0.79
0.75
0.64
0.64
0.72
0.62
0.62
0.68
0.62 9.7
9.6
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.7 0.62
0.72
0.59
0.65
0.72
0.69
0.65
0.53
0.65


3.Evaluation of suitable cropping pattern for salt affected soils
Experiments conducted during 1984-1989 to find out suitable crop rotation for salt affected soils revealed that Dhaincha-wheat/ barley rotation gave maximum yield and returns (Table 24). Incorporation of dhaincha decreased the pH of soil.
Table 24 :Suitablity of crop rotation under salt affected soil Grain yield (q/ha) and Gross returns (Rs/ha)
Rotations G r a i n y i e l d G r o s s m o n e y r e t u r n s Soil properties
84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 Mean 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 Mean pH2 EC2
T1 Fallow-Wheat
T2 Daincha-Wheat
T3 Fallow-Barley
T4 Dhaincha-Barley
T5 Fallow-Mustard
T6 Dhaincha-Mustard
CD at 5% 26.07
22.58
22.65
25.75
10.58
14.25 22.34
27.36
38.46
48.61
8.61
11.38 14.85
27.48
31.32
40.53
6.93
12.07 20.57
29.32
29.32
47.48
9.32
15.16 27.16
38.41
20.41
26.91
6.25
7.50 22.19
29.03
28.43
37.85
8.33
12.07 4016
5499
3791
4562
4016
5499
1124 8029
9087
9094
11285
3012
3983
2030 4689
7688
6339
8088
4781
7846
2182 5583
7174
6525
9798
4058
6591
2270 9462
12888
5090
6792
2845
3413
2577 6355
8467
6169
8105
3742
5466
2095 9.3
9.1
9.2
9.1
9.3
9.1 0.80
0.74
0.87
0.86
0.84
0.86
4.Management of poor quality ground water for crop production :
(A) Agronomical aspects :
1. Effect of saline water irrigation at different stages :
An experiment was conducted in 1985-86, 86-87 and 87-88 with three salinity levels (EC=2, 4 & 6 dSm-1) and four growth stages (germination, flower initiation, pod formation and all above) on guar in kharif and gram (1985-86) and fenugreak (1986-87 and 1987-88) crops in rabi. The findings are as follows
Cluster bean :
The result showed that there was practically no effect of salinity of irrigation water and the growth stages on yield of clusterbean in all the three years. Grain and straw yields decreased if saline water is applied at all the growth stages (Table 25).
Gram :
Grain yield of gram decreased with increasing salinity of water and the yield was low when saline water was applied in every irrigation, one irrigation with saline water at any stage had no effect on grain yield of gram.
Fenugreek :
There was no effect of EC of irrigation water on grain yield of fenugreek and it was lowest when saline water was applied at all the stages of growth.



Table 25 :Effect of saline water irrigation and different stages of growth on grain yield (q/ha) and soil properties
Treatments Clusterbeean Gram yield Fenugreek
Mean of three years Mean of two years
Yield pH EC Grain pH EC
EC of water (dS m-1)
2
4
6
SEm±
CD at 5% 4.57
4.73
4.21
0.53
NS 7.98
8.10
8.02 0.40
0.35
0.37 21.39
19.29
8.80
0.35
1.02 23.79
24.87
23.81
1.05
NS 7.85
7.93
8.07 0.49
0.58
0.61
Growth Stages
Germination
Flower initiation
Pod formation
All the above
SEm±
CD at 5% 4.70
4.50
4.70
4.29
0.51
NS 7.93
7.98
8.04
8.05 0.30
0.29
0.34
0.37 17.60
17.68
18.56
8.70
0.40
1.20 25.13
24.07
24.50
22.72
1.20
NS 7.84
8.24
8.03
7.92 0.44
0.50
0.51
0.64
An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of poor quality waters (in respect of EC and SAR) on wheat. The result showed that wheat yield significantly decreased with increasing salinity of water from 8 to 12 dSm-1, whereas there was no effect of SAR even upto 80 on crop yields indicating resistance of crop to higher sodicity. Increasing EC and SAR levels increased EC of soil (Table 26).
Table 26 :Effect of EC and SAR of irrigation water on yield of wheat and soil properties
Treatments Grain yield (q/ha) Soil properties
1985-86 1986-87 Mean pH EC
Salinity levels 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
E1 8 dSm-1
E2 12 dSm-1
CD at 5% 29.92
26.24
2.96 28.37
23.37
3.81 29.15
24.81
-- 8.12
8.25 8.45
8.60 0.91
1.00 1.11
1.10

SAR levels
S1 2
S2 40
S3 60
S4 80
CD at 5% 29.60
28.48
27.59
26.72
NS 29.78
26.02
25.28
22.00
NS 29.69
27.25
26.44
24.36
-- 8.22
8.03
8.15
8.15 8.75
8.56
8.81
8.81 0.94
1.21
1.21
1.53 1.08
1.15
1.15
1.24
Studies on effect of different levels of ECiw and adj SAR on the properties of different soils indicated that increase in the level of adj. SAR in irrigation water increased ECe, pH and SAR of soil (Table 27). The adverse effect of EC and Adj. SAR was more in fine textured , slowly permeable clay soil but it was less on the coarse textured highly permeable loamy sand soil..
Table :27 Average effect of ECiw, Adj. SARiw and soil type of ECe (dS/m) SAR & pH of soil
Treatments ECe (dS/m) SAR pH

ECiw (dS/m)

2.0
4.0
6.0
SEm+
CD at 5%

Adj. SAR
10
20
30
40
50
SEm+
CD at 5%
Soil types
loamy sand
Loamy
Clay
Sem+
CD at 5%

2.0
3.6
6.0
0.08
0.27


3.4
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.4
0.10
0.28

2.7
4.0
4.9
0.08
0.27


20.8
21.7
22.4
0.31
0.87


10.7
15.2
21.6
25.2
35.6
0.40
1.12

22.7
21.4
20.8
0.31
0.87

8.7
8.6
8.5
0.1
NS


8.4
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.8
0.07
0.20

8.7
8.5
8.6
0.1
NS
(Pathan et al,1991)

Six representative sites irrigated with saline waters in Bilara tract of southern eastern part of Jodhpur district of Rajasthan were selected and soil and irrigation water samples were collected and analysed for different constituents. The soil had high EC and ESP was saline sodic and sodic in character. pH and EC of irrigation water varied from 7.3 to 8.1 and 2.0 to 13.5 dS/m respectively. SAR and RSC varied between 19.5 to 43.2 and nil to 13.34. (Table 28) The irrigation waters are sodic and possess high SAR and ESP values. EC of water is significantly related with soluble salts in the soil and also the SAR of water and soil extracts.(Table 29). Vyas et.al., (1982) observed that criteria used to classify soils as well as the irrigation waters as having high salinity hazards are not teneable for well drained light textured soils and need modifications.



Table 28: Soil reaction, salinity, SAR, SSP, CEC and ESP of soils
Soil depth(Cm) pH EC(dS/m) SAR SSP CEC
(me/100g) ESP
0-24 8.5
1.0-7.3
(3.8) 9.8-43.9
(26.9) 66.3-95.2
(87.8) 2.0-5.9
(4.2) 13.7-34.8
(23.8)
24-48 8.8 1.8-5.6
(3.2) 11.9-47.0
(29.5) 80.8-95.9
(91.2) 2.7-10.0
(6.3) 13.8-35.0
(24.1)
48.72 8.7 1.3-6.0
(3.4) 12.4-60.7
(37.3) 85.4-98.8
(92.7) 3.9-9.5
(6.9) 14.9-33.9
(24.0)
72.96 8.6 2.0-6.8
(3.7) 11.3-57.0
(31.3) 74.1-96.5
(90.2) 2.5-9.0
(5.8) 11.6-42.2
(24.9)
96-120 8.6 2.0-8.6
(4.2) 18.7-70.0
(39.5) 73.1-98.1
(88.1) 1.8-9.0
(5.3) 16.3-42.2
(26.3)
*Figures in parentheses are average values.
Table 29: Relationship between irrigation water and soil properties
Parameters DEPTH (Cm)
0-24 24-48 48-72 72-96 96-120
Eciw X Ece soil +0.915* +0.839 +0.770 +0.881* +0.895*
SAR X ESP Soil +0.557 +0.805 +0.736 +0.604 +0.566
SARiw X SARe +0.983** 0.987** +0.670 +0.985** +0.806
SSPiw X ESP +0.808 +0.822* +0.788 +0.791 +0.706
*,** Significant at 5 % and 1% respectively.

A field study conducted on sandy loam soil of low fertility revealed that yield of wheat reduced with increased salinity of irrigation water beyond 6 dS/m . Maximum yield of wheat was recorded at the irrigation schedule of 43mm CPE at EC of 2 dS/m (Vyas et al. 1986) (Table 30).
Table 30 : Combined effect of irrigation frequency and salinity of irrigation water on grain yield of wheat (q/ha)
ECiw(dS/m) Irrigation frequency (CPE in mm)
I0(60) I2(50) I3(43)
1981-82 1982-83 1981-82 1982-83 1981-82 1982-83
2 24.50 20.80 22.81 22.00 32.17 24.80
6 24.60 18.40 26.80 19.54 28.49 19.66
10 17.24 13.40 21.02 13.40 21.02 15.39
14 14.29 10.40 14.40 7.80 16.71 7.80
CD at 5% 4.76 2.99

Studies on effieicent use of urea and coated fertilizers in light textured soil under saline water irrigation showed that grain yield of wheat was maximum under SCU (Sulphur coated urea)which was at par with NCU (Neem coated urea) (Table 31). Uptake of nitrogen by wheat was higher in coated fertilizers. Increasing levels of Eciw from 2 to 14 dS/m decreased the grain yield and N uptake of wheat(Vyas and Singh, 1989).


Table 31: Effect of slow release nitrogeneous fertilizers and levels of saline water on yield and N uptake of wheat
Treatments Yield (kg/ha) N uptake(kg/ha)*
Grain Straw
1981-82 1982-83 1981-82 1982-83 Grain Straw
Urea 25.90 25.71 36.99 36.71 50.3 15.9
Urea split 27.01 27.34 38.40 39.64 53.6 16.9
NCU 29.77 28.70 42.76 41.91 59.9 19.2
SCU 30.11 29.24 42.45 41.75 62.0 19.5
Sem+ 25 19 59 36 0.55 0.34
CD at 5% 72 54 170 104 1.58 0.98
ECiw (dS/m)
2 31.38 30.77 43.18 46.15 66.3 21.5
6 30.28 30.04 41.00 40.59 63.4 19.8
10 27.73 27.22 39.49 39.50 53.3 16.5
14 33.73 22.99 36.84 36.85 43.0 14.0
LSD(P=0.5%) 158 176 188 179 4.8 1.75
*Average for two years
The experiments conducted on Barley and wheat for 4-6 years with two levels of irrigation at IW/CPE ratio 1.0 and 1.15 and four levels of salinity (viz. BAW,ECiw 1,8 and 12 dS/m) revealed that increasing depth of irrigation IW/CPE 1.0 to 1.15 enhanced the wheat crop yield upto moderate salinity (8 dS/m) compared to non saline water. While in barley crop increased IW/CPE was not found useful (Table 32)
Table 32 : Wheat and Barley yield with varying IW/CPE ratio under saline irrigation
IW/CPE ratio Eciw (dS/m)
Baw 4 8 12
Fallow wheat (Mean of 6 years)
1.0 24.1 22.7 23.7 22.3
1.15 25.8 25.8 25.5 22.6
fallow barley(mean of 6 years)
1.0 50.8 42.3 44.4 43.1
1.15 49.7 44.4 41.1 41.0


Saline water irrigation through basin and pitcher irrigation
Studies conducted on pitcher and conventional method of irrigation revealed that the maximum measn vegetable yield (9306 kg/ha) was recorded with normal water pitcher irrigation (Table 33). Salinity of water reduced the yield slightly under both the method of irrigation . Pitcher irrigation with normal water was found to be significantly superior over rest of the treatments in first year but it was significantly inferior to check basin irrigation in second year. Pitcher irrigation with saline water was also significantly superior to check basin method in first year while a reverse trend was observed in the second year of study, this might be due to reduced rate of water suction as a consequence of salt deposition on the pitcher surface in the form of insoluble compounds. Average conjunctive use of water in check basin method was 2800 mm as compared to 635 mm in pitcher irrigation indicating a saving of about 80% water (Singh et al.,1987).
Table 33: Vegetable yield and economics of knol khol cultivation on sandy soils as affected by method of irrigation
Treatments Vegetabke yield (q/ha) Net returns (Rs/ha)
1985-86 1986-87 Mean 1985-86 1986-87 Mean
I1 -Normal water 7340 6656 6998 7526 6460 6993
I2 -Check basin with saline water 7320 5920 6620 7496 5356 6426
I3 -Pitcher method with normal water 14720 3893 9306 20407 3935 12021
i4 -Pitcher method with saline water 10940 3080 7010 14337 2616 8526
LSD at 5% 1904 2636 -- -- -- --

B-. Ionic composition:
Pearlmillet :

Studies on crop response to phosphorus under chloride dominated waters revealed that there was significant reduction in grain and straw yields of pearlmillet with increasing salinity of irrigaion water. Ratio of Cl:SO4 and different doses of P had no significant effect on crop yields (Table 34). Almost similar results were obtained in second year also except that there was significant effect of salinity levels on pearlmillet yield.
Wheat :
Two years studies on effect of phosphorus under different chloride dominated waters indicated that salinity of irrigation water and phosphorus levels recorded significant effect on grain and straw yield of wheat (Table 34). Increasing salinity levels recorded a gradual decrease in the grain and straw yield of wheat with maximum yield at control and the minimum being under salinity levels of 12 dSm-1.
Ratio of anions did not influence the grain and straw yield significantly. Regarding the effect of phosphorus on grain and straw yield of wheat, it was clear that maximum yield was recorded at P1 followed by P3 and minimum under P2. In 1987-88 grain and straw yields decreased with increasing salinity and increasing Cl:SO4 ratio. However, the effects of treatments were non-significant.








Table 34 :Response of pearlmillet and wheat under chloride dominated irrigation water to phosphorus
Treatments G r a i n y i e l d (q/ha)
Pearlmillet Wheat
1987-88 1988-89 Mean 1987-88 1988-89 Mean
Salinity levels
S1 (control)
S2 - 8 dSm-1
S3 -12 dSm-1
CD at 5% 6.61
6.04
6.25
NS 10.80
8.64
7.45
2.19 8.71
7.34
6.85
-- 21.86
20.10
18.40
NS 19.49
17.91
16.96
1.21 20.68
19.00
17.68
--
Ratio of anions
C1 (70 : 30)
C2 (90 : 10)
CD at 5% 6.33
6.38
NS 9.05
8.87
NS 7.69
7.63
-- 19.29
21.00
NS 16.84
19.39
NS 18.07
19.54
--
Levels of phosphorus
P1 (control)
P2 100% R.D.
P3 150% R.D.
CD at 5% 5.82
6.89
6.18
NS 9.02
9.05
8.82
NS 7.42
7.97
7.50
-- 18.98
20.45
21.02
NS 19.15
17.00
18.21
1.40 19.07
18.73
19.62
--
*R.D. - Recommended dose
Studies conducted with five varieties of green gram to evaluate the specific anion effect and varietal difference in salt tolerance revealed that green gram could tolerate sodium salt upto 5 me/L. The general order of specific anion effect at low level of salinity (5-10 me/L) was HCO3’ > CO3”>NO3’>Cl’>SO4”. In general SO4” is least toxic, CO3” and HCO3’ are most toxic and chloride & NO3’ are intermediate. Hybrid-45 & GC-140 were most senstive to carbonate. GC-139 was maximum tolerant to sulphate(Table 35).
Table 35 : Effect of different anions and increasing salt concentration on the germination (%) of some varities of green gram
Salts Hybrid-45 Krishna-11 GC-153 GC-140 GC-139
5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20
Na2CO3 54 45 20 57 47 20 75 70 30 47 32 21 58 54 35
NaCl 70 48 33 88 72 52 68 56 42 88 67 52 95 82 59
Na2SO4 80 65 38 91 79 45 84 61 50 68 51 38 95 84 72
NaHCO3 45 37 24 38 27 22 55 45 38 `42 30 23 53 45 39
NaNO3 78 63 31 66 54 49 67 50 40 72 54 41 78 63 58
LSD 5% 7.5 9.1 8.3 7.7 8.2
(Somani et al,1989)

Experiments were conducted to establish saline water tolerance of crops. The tolerance limits are given below and same have been recommended to the farmers.
Table 36: Salt tolerence of crop varieties
Crop Variety Eciw (dS/m) Yield(q/ha) Year
Wheat K.Sona 12 21.1 1981-83
Barley RD-31 12 33.5 1981-83
Guar Durgapura safed 6 4.0 1981-83
Methi Nagauri local 6 9.6 1980-83
Mustard T-59 10 17.0 1980-83
Spinach Jobner green 6 560 1984-87
Chillies(green) Local 6 83.8 1985-87
Corriander UD-41 8 10.4 1986-87

Table 37 : Yield of different crops (q/ha) under saline water irrigation
Eciw
(dS/m) Wheat
(1981-83) Barley
(1981-83) Guar
(1981-83) Methi
(1980-83) Mustard
(1980-83) Spinach
(1984-87) Coriander
(1986-89) Chillies
(1985-87)
2 25.97 39.90 4.86 11.43 21.96 624 10.68 91.24
4 -- --` -- -- -- 594 -- 82.89
6 23.47 .37.45 4.04 8.63 18.30 560 10.73 83.90
8 -- -- -- -- -- 488 10.48 76.73
10 -- -- 2.66 5.69 17.06 -- 10.45 -
12 21.16 33.56 -- -- -- 488 -- 62.96
14 -- -- 1.42 3.46 14.83 -- 8.61 -
CD at 5% -- -- 1.42 3.53 5.94 107.6 -- 18.06

Screening of elite varieties/genotypes of different crops for cultivation under irrigation with poor quality waters :
Screening programme to identify the suitable crop cultivars for cultivation under irrigation with poor quality waters was carried out. The crop wise results are given in table 38.
Pearl millet :
Ten elite varieties of pearlmillet was tested during kharif 1995 and 1996. Two years’ studies revealed that there was successive reduction in grain yield of pearl millet as ECiw increased from 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1. There was 12.7, 25.3 and 37.6 per cent reduction in grain yield at ECiw 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 dSm-1 as compared to ECiw 2.5 dSm-1. Among genotypes tested the genotypes HHB - 60, RHB - 90 and MH - 419 of pearl millet were found suitable for irrigation with poor quality waters.
Guar :
Ten varieties (Durgapura Safed, 2470-12, GAUG-29, Durgajai, RGC-976, RGC-471, RGC-978, GAUG-34, HG-75 and Suvidha) were grown with saline waters (ECiw 2.5 to 10.0 dSm-1) during kharif 1994 and 1995. There was successive reduction in grain yield as the salinity of water increased. RGC-978 recorded highest yield followed by HG-75 and GAUG-34. Interaction between ECiw and genotypes was also significant.
Groundnut :
Ten genotypes of groundnut (i.e. TG-26, JL-24, TMV-10, TAG-24, M-13, Somnath, SB-XI, ICGS-41 and PG-1) were tested with saline water having EC 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1 during kharif 1995 and 1996. Mean of two years’ data showed that maximum pod yield was recorded in case of SB-XI followed by K-3. There was 8.5, 22.5, 42.8 and 65.1 per cent reduction in pod yield at ECiw 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 dSm-1, respectively as compared to BAW (EC 0.25 dSm-1). At ECiw of 10.0 dSm-1, every genotype had a reduction of more than 50 per cent as compared to BAW. So it is desirable not to irrigate groundnut with water hsving EC more than 7.5 dSm-1.

Wheat :
Out of ten varieties of wheat tested with irrigation water having EC 2.5 to 12.5 dSm-1 during rabi 1993-94, the cultivars WH-157, WH-542 and Raj-3077 proved significatly better than others at ECiw 2.5 dSm-1. At ECiw 5.0 dSm-1, WH-452 proved best. The yield of K-65 did not decrease significatly upto ECiw 10.0 dSm-1, showing its tolerance to high salinity. At 10.0 dSm-1 Raj-3077 and K-65 were found better than others.
Mustard :
Ten genotypes of mustard were tested under irrigation with poor quality waters having EC 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1 during rabi seasons of 1994-95 to 1996-97. Three years’ studies revealed that there was 2.1, 19.6, 32.3 and 48.1 per cent reduction in grain yield of mustard at ECiw of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 dSm-1, respectively as compared to BAW (EC 0.25 dSm-1). It was observed that at ECiw 2.5 to 7.5 dSm-1 the genotypes RBT-1, RBT-2 and RBT-62 (B. tournifortie) gave significatly higher yield than others. At ECiw 10.0 dSm-1 RBT-1 and RBT-2 were found better than others. Among mustard varieties (B. juncea) Kranti was found better than others.
Cumin :
Tolerance studies carried out on cumin for three years’ (1994-95 to 1996-97) revealed that there was seccessive reduction in grain yield of cumin as ECiw increased from 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1. At EC 2.5 dSm-1 genotypes UC-217, UC-209 and RZ-19 gave higher yields than others whereas at ECiw of 5.0 to 7.5 dSm-1 RZ-19 gave maximum yield followed by UC-208. RZ-19 and UC-208 were found suitable for saline water irrigation.
Table 38:ffect of saline water on the yield (q/ha) of genotypes of different crops.
Genotypes/varieties ECiw (dS m-1)
0.25 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Mean
Pearlmillet (Average of 1995 & 96)
RHB - 30
RHB - 90
MH - 425
HHB - 67
HHB - 60
MH - 501
MH - 49
MP - 234
Eknath Hyrid
WCC - 75
Mean
CD at 5% 14.9
21.4
18.7
18.0
21.3
14.0
19.7
19.4
17.6
14.7
17.9
3.3 15.4
20.9
16.8
17.4
21.3
13.3
19.1
17.8
17.4
13.9
17.3
-- 13.0
19.5
14.1
16.4
19.5
11.5
17.3
17.2
16.2
11.6
15.6
-- 13.1
18.6
12.1
13.3
17.7
10.0
14.9
13.8
14.3
9.9
13.4
-- 9.0
14.3
10.4
11.4
13.9
8.2
13.5
12.9
11.5
9.6
11.2
-- 13.0
18.5
14.4
15.3
18.6
11.3
16.9
14.8
15.3
11.6
--
--





Guar (Average of 1994 & 95)
Durgapura Safed
2470 - 12
GAUG - 29
Durga Jai
RGC - 936
RGC - 471
GAUG - 34
RGC - 978
HG - 75
Suvidha
Mean
CD at 5% --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
16.8
17.7
18.8
14.3
16.2
13.4
17.2
20.3
16.7
11.6
16.3
1.77 15.0
13.0
12.7
10.5
12.0
12.7
17.6
16.8
14.9
12.7
13.8 11.5
12.1
9.1
7.4
11.6
8.9
9.0
12.3
12.6
10.0
10.8 8.0
7.1
7.9
7.5
6.7
7.2
8.8
11.2
8.7
5.7
7.9 12.8
12.5
12.1
9.9
11.6
10.2
13.1
15.1
13.2
10.0
--
Groundnut (Average 1995 & 96)
TG - 26
JL - 24
TMV - 10
TAG - 24
K - 3
M - 13
Somnath
SB - XI
ICGS - 41
PG - 1
Mean
CD at 5% 9.9
9.5
10.3
8.2
12.3
8.1
7.8
12.3
9.3
10.8
9.9
1.37 9.0
8.9
9.8
7.9
10.1
7.2
7.7
11.5
8.6
9.1
9.0 7.1
7.7
7.5
6.5
10.0
6.8
6.6
9.2
7.5
7.2
7.6 5.2
5.9
5.5
5.4
6.8
4.2
5.2
7.4
4.9
5.4
5.6 3.2
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.8
2.3
2.8
4.9
2.5
3.6
3.4 6.9
7.1
7.4
6.3
8.7
5.7
6.0
9.1
6.6
7.3
--


Genotypes/varieties ECiw (dS m-1)
0.25 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Mean
Wheat (Average 1995 & 96)
HD - 2327
RAJ - 1555
WH - 542
WH - 157
WL - 711
RAJ - 2184
KRL1 - 4
RAJ - 3077
K - 65
HD - 2285
Mean
CD at 5% --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-- 13.4
15.4
22.7
24.1
14.9
16.3
20.6
24.0
17.3
15.8
18.4
2.4 13.4
14.7
23.5
15.6
13.7
17.6
17.0
17.9
16.4
14.0
16.4 7.8
15.2
14.1
17.4
13.8
10.1
14.8
13.4
15.6
13.9
13.6 5.8
5.2
13.3
14.0
9.4
11.5
12.7
17.5
16.1
7.8
11.4 10.1
12.6
18.4
17.8
13.0
13.9
16.3
18.2
16.4
12.9
--
Mustard (Average of 1994-95 to 1996-97)
Pusa bold
PCR - 7
T - 59
RBT - 1
RBT - 2
RBT - 61
BIO - 902
Kranti
RBT - 62
RH - 30
Mean
CD at 5% 10.4
13.6
12.6
27.6
25.2
24.8
13.0
16.6
23.8
12.8
18.0
2.6 10.7
12.7
11.8
25.6
25.1
25.6
11.5
17.1
24.0
12.2
17.6
9.5
11.8
10.2
21.1
20.9
19.7
9.5
14.0
18.7
9.6
14.5 8.5
8.2
9.2
17.5
18.0
17.0
8.6
10.8
16.5
7.9
12.2 5.7
7.1
7.9
14.1
14.4
12.9
7.0
8.5
12.2
6.9
9.7 9.0
10.7
10.3
21.1
20.7
20.0
9.9
13.4
19.1
9.9
--
Cumin (Average (1994-95 & 1996-97)
UC - 198
UC - 216
UC - 220
UC - 89
UC - 208
UC - 218
UC - 217
UC - 209
RS - 1
RZ - 19
Mean
CD at 5% 2.6
3.6
3.7
2.8
3.8
2.7
3.7
2.8
3.6
3.9
3.3
0.5 2.3
3.0
3.0
2.3
3.3
2.4
3.3
3.2
2.8
3.2
2.9 1.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.6
3.2
2.3 1.6
2.4
2.2
1.7
2.5
1.4
1.9
1.8
2.5
2.6
2.0
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.4
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.1
2.9
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
2.9
--

5.Performance of crops on saline soils/irrigation with poor quality waters:
(a) Germination Studies :

Germination studies revealed that average germination of guar seeds was around 90% upto EC 1.50 dS/m and was around 80% in soil of EC 1.94 dS/m and beyond this EC the germination decreased significantly . The varieties Durgapura Safed, RGC-986, Durga jaya maintained higher germination upto EC 2.50 and 3.19 dS/m. (Singhania and Lal,1993).
Average germination of pearlmillet seed was 79.3 % at EC2 of 1.12 dS/m and it was 64% at EC21.94 dS/m. The genotype MP-223 and 843 A X Smin 5053 showed germination 76% even at an EC2 of 3.19 dS/m. as compared to other genotypes (Singhania and Lal, 1993).
Germination studies on guar revealed that at EC2 of about 1.0 to 1.25 dS/m there was observed more than 13% reduction in yield of IGFRI-1019-1, CARG-8 and RG-978 but in case of HG-75 and GAUG-34, the reduction varied from 5 to 7% only. In HG-75 the reduction in yield even at EC2 of 1.6 to 2.0 dS/m was less than 20%, HG-75 and RGC-936 performed better than others in saline condition (Sharma and Verma, 1997).

(b) Growth Studies :

Studies on growth of cowpea, moong, gram, wheat, guar, cumin under variable soil salinity were undertaken by selecting various sites showing visual variation in soil salinity and in crop growth by correlation regression analysis. The ‘r’ values between EC of soil and yields of various crops were calculated and values of EC for 25 and 50 per cent reduction in yield of various crops as compared to maximum yield at lowest EC are as under (Table 39)
The yields of crops decreased linearly as the EC of soils increased. Other plant parameters i.e. number of branches, number of pods per plant, heights of plants etc. were correlated negatively and significantly with EC of soil. The yields were also negatively and significantly correlated with cations (Ca, Mg, Na) and anions (Cl, carbonates) but highest correlation was observed with sodium among cations and chloride among anions







Table 39 : ‘r’ values between EC and yields of various crops
Crop Yield ‘r’ Values of EC (dSm-1) for reduction References
25% 50%
Cowpea
Moong
Gram

Guar

Cumin

Sesame Total DM
Total DM
Grain
Straw
Grain
Straw
Grain
Straw
Grain
Straw -0.83**
-0.51**
-0.67**
-0.71**
-0.49**
-0.56**
-0.76**
-0.79**
-0.46*
-0.43* 1.03
0.38
0.33
0.34
1.00
1.12
0.54
0.57
0.79
0.66 1.75
0.52
0.73
0.77
1.81
2.14
0.83
0.93
1.11
1.20 Lal and Singhania(1994)
Lal and Singhania (1994)
Singhania et.al. (1994)



Verma and Lal (1996)

Lal and Verma (1997)


Performance of different crop varieties under saline and high RSC waters:
Pearlmillet :
Two years study during 1989 and 1990 in sodic soil (pH 9.2, EC 0.65 dS/m) irrigated with high RSC water (8.2 me/l) at farmer’s field revealed that variety MH-169 and RCB-2 gave higher yield (23.73 and 22.07 q/ha) as compared to MH-179 , WCC-75 and MH-36.
Barley
Variety BL-2 gave significantly higher yield (33.88 q/ha) as compared to RD-1635, RD-2182, RD-2259 and RD-2423.
Wheat :
Variety Raj.1972 and Raj .3077 gave significantly higher yield than Lok-1 and
Kh-65 (Table 40).



Table 40 : Performance of different varieties of crops under high RSC water
(8.2 me/l)
Pearlmillet Barley Wheat
Varieties Yield
(q/ha) Varieties
Yield
(q/ha) Varieties
Yield
(q/ha)
MH-36 16.12 RD-1635 15.48 Raj.3077 25.79
MH-169 23.73 RD-2182 20.48 Raj 1972 26.29
MH-179 20.42 RD-2259 18.07 Raj.1482 23.56
RCB-2 22.07 RD-2423 27.52 Raj.1114 24.37
WCC-75 19.29 BL-2 33.88 Lok-1 20.82
Kharchia 18.62
CD at 5% 1.67 2.58 3.85

Performance of crops/ varieties under saline sodic condition :
Studies on the performence of different varieties of wheat and barley under saline sodic condition(ECe 8.86 and ESP 30.78 ) revealed that Variety Kh-65 of wheat and RS-6, RS-17 and BL-2 of barley performed better under saline sodic soils as compared to other varieties (Table 41).
Table 41: Performence of different varities of wheat and barley under saline sodic condition
WHEAT BARLEY
Varieties Grain yield Varieties Grain yield
Kh-65 23.77 RS-6 30.77
Raj-2996 14.88 RS-17 26.44
Raj.2934 11.33 BL-2 11.99
Raj 3062 11.22 Karan-19 6.88
Raj.3027 11.11 Karan-15 6.66
Raj.3030 11.88
CD at 5% 2.16 CD at 5% 2.91

Studies on the performance of grasses under saline water irrigation indicated that Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) was most suitable (415.3 q/ha) followed by blue panic (311.0 q/ha) and paragrass (309.5 q/ha). Application of saline water increased EC of soil (from 0.44 to 0.62 dSm-1). EC of soil under different grasses varied slightly (0.50 to 0.55 dSm-1) (Table 42).




Table 42 :Effect of salinity of irrigation water on fresh yield of different grasses and their effect on soil properties
Treatments Yield (q/ha) Mean Soil properties
86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 pH2 EC2(dSm-1)
ECiw (dSm-1)
2
12
CD at 5% 507.9
457.9
NS 117.3
108.6
3.4 278.0
282.9
NS 191.7
186.2
NS 273.7
258.9
NS 9.96
9.85
-- 0.44
0.62
--
Grasses
Paragrass
Sevan grass
Guttan panic
Rhodes grass
Blue panic
CD at 5% 350.7
--
189.5
814.1
594.1
402.2 82.1
26.6
41.7
250.6
163.2
20.0 99.5
58.3
31.6
243.4
223.2
62.4 705.6
112.2
65.6
353.1
343.5
261.5 309.5
65.7
82.1
415.3
331.0
-- 9.58
9.87
9.77
9.95
9.95
-- 0.50
0.50
0.52
0.55
0.55
--
Agricultural Engineering aspect of salinity control :Development of suction irrigation : The suction irrigation system developed by the centre has given very good results and it can be adopted to cultivate vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants, flowers etc. in salt affected soils with or without saline water irrigation. (Yadav, 1986). Data in table 43 showed that suction irrigation system increased the vegetable yield of bottlegourd, brinjal, cabbage, cauliflower, knolkhol and water melon by 4.72, 11.11, 47.05, 45.91, 68.57 and 40.92 per cent over punched hole dripper system respectively(Yadav, 1983). Clay drip system of irrigation is more eight times more economical than any drip system developed so far.
Table 43 :Yields of crops under different methods of irrigation
Vegetable crop Yield (q/ha)
Clay drip system
Water applied Yield
(cm) (q/ha) Punched hole dripper
Water applied Yield
(cm) (q/ha)
Bottle gourd
Brinjal
Cabbage
Cauliflower
Knol-khol
Watermelon 8.0 310
4.0 250
5.3 500
4.6 518
3.9 590
72.3 730 19.0 296
9.6 225
13.3 340
11.6 344
10.1 350
84.5 518
Evaluation of quantity of irrigation water on different vegetables with suction method of irrigation in light texture of soil :
During 1988-89 a study was carried out for evaluation of the effect of quality of irrigation water on different vegetables with suction and pitcher method of irrigation.
The water requirment of all the vegetables was lower in the plots irrigated by suction than in pitcher (Table 44). By adopting suction method of irrigation, about 33.3 to 48.4 per cent of irrigation water may be saved. It was observed that in the suction method, the crop yield was about 3.8 to 4.4% more at 2 dSm-1 and 3.2 to 7.0% at 12 dSm-1 besides saving in water.
The suction irrigation was found better than the pitcher irrigarion as far as water saving and yield of the vegetables were concerned.
Table 44 :Water applied (cm) and yield (q/ha) of different vegetables
Vegetables Quantity of water (cm) Yield (q/ha)
Suction Pitcher Suction Pitcher
2 12 2 12 2 12 2 12
Kundru
Bottle gourd
Ridge gourd
Bitter gourd --
6.5
5.1
4.9 --
6.8
5.1
4.9 --
10.2
9.8
9.7 --
10.2
9.8
9.7 --
315
334
196 --
304
320
185 --
302
321
188 --
2
3
1
Development of proto-typed auto-irrigators :
Several auto-irrigators were developed to replace factory made costly and sophisticated auto-irrigators. The gulli and dumb-bell shaped emitters were developed to irrigate economically any seasonal crop and vegetable sown in rows. The gulli-shaped emitters were modified and developed to irrigate sugarcane.
Bulb, ball and emitter battery were developed to irrigate annual and biannual plants including fruit plants.
These auto-irrigators require clayey soils (Potter’s soil) and cowdung replacing synthetic materials adapted in factories. They can be developed by ordinary potters or farmers after undergoing little training.
The prototype auto-irrigators are simple, low cost, easy to fabricate and low in running cost. The operation is easy. This saves about 90% irrigation water than applied to furrow irrigation.



Studies on rate of salization of soil :
For the studies on rate of salinization of soil under shallow water table condition three sites designation as A, B & C (viz; RD-276, RD-277 and RD-305) in Loonkaransar Tehsil falling under IGNP command having water table varying from 0.6 to 1.8 m. were selected to find out rate at which salts move to the surface under bare condition of soil. One year study revealed that the capillary flow and rate of silinization are higher at site A where water table was 81 cm. followed by site C (average water table 94 cm.) whereas capillary flow and rate of salinization were the lowest or almost negligible at site B where average water table remained below 125 cm. (Table 45).
Table 45 :Rate of capillary flow and soil salinization at different sites under bare conditions
Site Average watertable (cm) Capillary (mm/day) Rate of salinization (mg/cm²/day)
Kharif Rabi Annual Kharif Rabi Annual
A
B
C 81
128
94 +0.63
+0.16
+0.29 +0.64
+0.12
+0.58 +1.02
+0.26
+0.30 +0.062
+0.005
+0.020 +0.045
+0.005
+0.029 +0.10
+0.00
+0.02

One year study on rate of salinization under cotton-wheat rotation revealed that capillary flow at site P (RD-276) was maximum during kharif and rabi where water table fluctuated between 51 to 97 cm., whereas it was the lowest at site Q (RD-277) where the water table fluctuated between 87 to 135 cm. The rate of salinization was maximum at site R (RD-305) followed by site P and lowest at site Q. At site P the rate of salinization is lower than R inspite of higher water table at R. It might be due to presence of poor quality under ground water at site R as compared to P. The rate of capillary flow and salinization was lower in rabi season as compared to kharif at all the three sites (Table 46).
Table 46 :Rate of capillary flow and soil salinization at different sites under cotton-wheat rotation
Site Watertable (cm) Capillary (mm/day) Rate of salinization (mg/cm²/day)
Range Mean Kharif Rabi Annual Kharif Rabi Annual
P
Q
R 51- 97
87-137
74-125 83
110
100 +2.103
+1.559
+1.565 +0.868
+0.343
+0.453 +1.530
+0.992
+1.046 +0.038
+0.030
+0.085 +0.016
+0.007
+0.029 +0.028
+0.019
+0.055




Nutrient Management of Gypsiferous Soils
Studies on nutrient management of gypsiferous soils indicated that yield and yield attributes of guar and wheat were significantly higher in soil containing 5 to 10 per cent gypsum than control (no gypsum). Urea and Ammonium sulphate were found superior to CAN. Yield and yield attributes of guar and wheat were significantly higher when 100 per cent of recommended dose of fertilizer was applied as compared to 75 per cent of recommended dose (Table 47 & 48).
Table 47 :Effect of N carriers and fertilizer dose on yield and yield attributes of guar grown on gypsiferous soils (Average of two years )
Treatments Dry matter (g/plant) Pod yield (g/plant) Height (cm) No. of Pods/plant
Control
5% gypsum
10% gypsum
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
N carriers :
Urea
CAN
Amm. sulphate
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
Fertilizer dose:
75% RD
100% RD
125% RD
SEm±
C.D. at 5% 4.24
6.40
7.59
0.19
0.52

6.47
5.33
6.43
0.19
0.52

5.02
6.57
6.70
0.19
0.52
0.72
1.62
2.14
0.08
0.21

1.66
1.32
1.61
0.08
0.21

1.01
1.70
1.75
0.08
0.21
18.9
26.9
27.1
1.1
3.1

22.6
22.7
27.6
1.1
3.1

21.8
21.2
28.5
1.1
3.1 3.9
6.4
8.8
0.3
0.8

6.8
5.5
6.8
0.3
0.8

4.8
7.1
7.4
0.3
0.8

Table 48 Effect of N carriers and fertilizer dose on yield and yield attributes of wheat grown on gypsiferous soils
Treatments Yield per plant (g)
Straw Grain Height
(cm) Ear length (cm) 1000-grain weight (g)
Control
5% gypsum
10% gypsum
SEm±
C.D. at 5%

N carriers :
Urea
CAN
Amm. sulphate
SEm±
C.D. at 5%

Fertilizer dose:
75% RD
100% RD
125% RD
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
C.V.% 1.002
1.239
1.258
0.022
0.062


1.231
1.049
1.218
0.022
0.062


1.048
1.221
1.229
0.022
0.062
9.8 0.435
0.479
0.253
0.023
0.063


0.507
0.429
0.502
0.023
0.063


0.401
0.513
0.523
0.023
0.063
7.0 38.2
38.6
39.7
0.3
1.0


39.2
37.9
39.6
0.3
1.0


36.6
39.7
40.3
0.3
1.0
5.6 6.6
6.7
7.0
0.08
0.22


6.8
6.7
6.9
0.08
NS


6.2
7.0
7.1
0.08
0.22
6.1 19.0
21.0
21.7
0.22
0.62


20.9
20.0
20.9
0.22
0.62


19.2
21.3
21.3
0.22
0.62
5.6

Studies on effect of nitrogen carriers and ECiw on yield of wheat grown on gypsiferous soil revealed that yield and yield attributes of wheat increased significantly when gypsum content of soil increased up to 10 per cent. The maximum and significantly higher yields of wheat were recorded when recommended dose of nitrogen was applied through 50% Urea+50% FYM in comparson to urea and FYM alone. The yield and yield attributes of wheat decreased significantly when ECiw increased beyond 4.0 dSm-1(Table 49).
Table 49 Effect of N carriers and ECiw on yield and yield attributes of wheat grown on gypsiferous soils
Treatments Grain yield (g/plant) Biological yield (g/plant) Plant height (cm) Ear length (cm)
Control
5% gypsum
10% gypsum
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
N carriers :
Urea
50%FYM +
50% Urea
FYM
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
ECiw(dSm-1)
0.25 (BAW)
4
8
12
SEm±
C.D. at 5%
C.V.% 0.160
0.176
0.184
0.004
0.012

0.087
0.236

0.197
0.004
0.012

0.231
0.219
0.157
0.086
0.005
0.013
12.7 0.491
0.568
0.577
0.011
0.031

0.327
0.712

0.597
0.011
0.031

0.745
0.710
0.494
0.232
0.013
0.036
12.2 27.9
29.3
29.6
0.4
1.2

24.2
32.3

30.4
0.4
1.2

33.2
31.9
28.2
22.4
0.5
1.3
8.7 3.9
4.2
4.4
0.07
0.20

3.4
5.1

4.1
0.07
0.20

4.9
4.8
3.9
3.1
0.08
0.22
10.1



CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF PRACTICAL UTILITY

Survey and characterisation of underground irrigation waters and corresponding soils of 12 tehsils of Jaipur district. viz. Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amer, Jaipur, Sanganer, Bassi, Dudu, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar, Jamva Ramgarh and Dausa and four tehsils of Bikaner district viz. Loonkaransar, Kolayat, Bikaner and Nokha and two tehsils of Churu district (Sridungargarh and Sardarsahar) of Western Rajasthan have done. Water quality maps have also been prepared. The recommendations based on the quality of water and soils have been made to the farmers.
Table : Salt tolerence of crop varieties
Crop Variety Eciw (dS/m) Yield(q/ha) Year
Wheat K.Sona 12 21.1 1981-83
Barley RD-31 12 33.5 1981-83
Guar Durgapura safed 6 4.0 1981-83
Methi Nagauri local 6 9.6 1980-83
Mustard T-59 10 17.0 1980-83
Spinach Jobner green 6 560 1984-87
Chillies(green) Local 6 83.8 1985-87
Corriander UD-41 8 10.4 1986-87


Studies conducted on different crops by selecting various sites showing visual variation in soil salinity and in crop growth. By correlation regression analysis, the values of EC for 25 and 50 percent reduction in yield of various crops compared to maximum yield at lowest EC are as under .
Crop Yield ‘r’ Values of EC (dS/m) for reduction
25% 50%
Cowpea Total DM -0.83 1.03 1.77
Green gram Total DM -0.51 0.38 0.52
Gram Grain -0.67 0.33 0.73
Guar Grain -0.49 1.00 1.81
Cumin Grain -0.76 0.54 0.83
Sesame Grain -0.46 0.74 1.11










Screening of alite varieties/genotypes of different crops for cultivation under irrigation with poor quality waters
Crop Varieties
Pearlmillet HHB-60, RHB-90, MH-419, BJ-104, LCB-1
Wheat Raj-3077, K-65,Raj.2918, Raj.2991,Raj.1114, KRL:1-4
Guar HG-75, RGC-978,GAUG-34
Groundnut SB XI and K-3
Mustard RBT-1,RBT-2 and Kranti
Cumin RZ-19, UC-208
Barley BL-2, RS-17 and RS-6


Germination of guar decreased significantly beyond EC of soil 1.94 dS/m. The variety Durgapura safed , RGC-986 and Durga jaya maintained higher germination upto EC 2.50 and 3.19 dS/m. The genotype MP-228 and 243 A X S min 5053 of pearlmillet showed 76% germination even at EC2 of 3.19 dS/m.
Studies on performance of saline water irrigation on grasses indicated that Rhodes grass (Chloris gayane) was most efficient followed by blue panic
Incorporation of dhamasa (Tephrosia purpuria) and subabool (Leucaiena leucocephala) in has shown promising results for reducing the deleterious effects of continuous use of saline water (8 dS/m) on wheat, barley , bajra, guar, gram and methi. Organic materials increased exchangeable Ca+Mg and decreased exchangeable Na, CaCO3 , EC and pH of alkali soil.
Application of gypsum @ ½ GR every third year has been recommended while using high RSC water in Jaipur. Mustard is preferred over wheat, gypsum has been found to be superior to use of pyrites.
Combined use of organic materials and inorganic amendments (Gypsum, Sulphur etc.) resulted in better reclamation as compared to their individual uses.
Green manuring with daincha resulted in yield improvement almost equal to application of gypsum @ 50% GR.
It requires a period of at least 6 weeks for sulphur and pyrites to oxidise to sulphuric acid and establish an equilibrium with soil exchangeable complex use of pyrite improved water holding capacity and pore spaces in alkali soil.
Application of gypsum and ½ GR (5 t/ha) with NP gave significantly higher grain yield and oil content of mustard in soil irrigated with high RSC waters compared to control.
Use of rice husk in conjuction with inorganic amendments like gypsum or sulphur is very effective in improving soil physical properties and yield of paddy from a saline sodic soil.
Dhaincha - wheat /barley - rotation was found to give maximum yield and returns on salt affected soils.
Suction irrigation system developed was found to be the most suitable irrigation method to irrigate economically row crops, fruits and vegetables.
Several auto irrigators were developed to irrigate fruits, vegetables, floors and medicinal plants . They are cheap and can be fabricated locally.
At a given level of RSC, the adverse effect of RSC on plant growth is related to ratio of CO3/ HCO3 ions in the irrigation waters i.e. CO3 ions are relatively more harmful . Ratio of Cl : SO4 in saline water showed non significant effect on grain yield of wheat .
Green gram could tolerate sodium salt upto 5 me/l . The general order of specific anion effect at two level of salinity ( 5-10 me/l) was HCO3’ >CO3’’> NO3’ > Cl’ >SO4”.
Studies on nutrient management in gypsiferous soils indicated that yield and yield attributes of guar and wheat was significantly higher in soil containing 10 percent gypsum than normal soil. Urea and Ammonium sulphate were found superior to CAN. Yield and yield attributes of both the crops were significantly higher when 100 percent of recommended dose of fertilizer was applied as compared to 75 percent of recommended dose and it was at par with 125 percent of recommended dose
Studies of rate of salinisation of soil indicated that rate of salinisation negligible if water table is maintained below 125 cm.























CHAPTER 5
PROPOSED AREAS OF RESEARCH

Inspite of the project being run for more than 20 years, it has not been possible collect information on all the aspects related to crop growth and salt affected soils or crop grown under poor quality waters . The information on some areas is very meagre and requires urgent attention in view of the problems faced by the farmers under field condition in both, command and non-command areas of IGNP. Proposed major thrust areas of research are as follows:

S. No. Areas of Research
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24
25 Integrated nutrient management for salt affected gypsiferous/ calcareous soils.
Rate of soil salinization under varying cropping sequences and water table conditions.
Studies on management of Nitrate/flouride rich waters for their profitable utilization.
Standardization of rapid diagnostic criteria for identification of salt affected soils.
Studies on mineralisation of added organic-N in salt affected soils.
Identification of best cropping sequence for sustainable agriculture in salt affected soil of IGNP area.
Studies on reclamation of salt affected soils of IGNP area having high water table.
Management of poor quality waters for drip and sprinkler irrigation of plants.
Screening of Horticultural crops for salinity and alkalinity tolerance.
Effect of forest trees on salt affected soil.
Standardization of methods for determining gypsum content in gypsiferous soils.
Indices for salinity/alkalinity/boron tolerance for crops.
Conjuctive use of saline and good water for grain and forage production & Afforestation.
Effect of frequency ratio and depth of irrigation with saline water on crops & soils.
Detailed studies on the effect of specific ions/ionic ratios on soil and plant.
Drainage systems under differnt soil types in irrigation projects for controlling water table and soil salinity.
Use of drainage effluents for irrigation of growing fish in disposal ponds or for salt production.
Investigations on salt balance studies in different cropping systems.
Agronomic practices most suitable for salinity/alkali resistant non-conventional crops grown on gypsiferous/calcareous soils.
Induction of salt resistence in different crops through soma-clonal techniques.
Reclamative capacities of different halophytes.
Quality critieria for sewage water for irrigation.
Studies on socio-economic viability of reclaimation of waterlogged soils at farmers field.
Development of regional hydro-salinity models.
Performance of forest trees in water-logged salt affected soils or under irrigation with poor quality waters.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

It has been mentioned above that Bikaner centre of the project was shifted to this place in view of the emerging twin problems of secondary salinisation and water logging in IGNP command. The work has been done on the critical depth of water table with respect to salinisation of surface soils, screening of elite varieties of conventional and non-conventional crops for salinity and sodicity tolerance and characterisation of under ground waters and corresponding soils in non-command area of IGNP. The work on management on saline and non-saline gypsiferous soiil is already in progress. Some work on utilization of nitrate rich saline waters has been intiated. However, some burning problems requiring urgent attention are still to be tackled i.e. management of poor quality waters for drip and sprinkler system of irrigation of plants, conjunctive use of surface and brackish ground water for vegetables, forage production and afforestation . Use of drainage effluents for irrigation and biological reclaimation of water logged soil. The work on drainage system under different soil types in irrigation projects for controlling water table and soil salinity has become an essentiality now. Thus it will appear that the centres situated in Command areas are to be further strengthened with respect to staff and budget to develop suitable technology for salt affected water logged soils.

Posted in: Agriculture