This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 20 October 2014, At: 05:43Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Arid Soil Research and RehabilitationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasr19

Afforestation techniques andevaluation of different tree speciesfor waterlogged saline soils insemiarid tropicsO. S. Tomar a , Raj K. Gupta b & J. C. Dagar ba Principal Scientist, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute ,Zarifa Farm, Kachhwa Road, Karnal, 132001, Indiab Central Soil Salinity Research Institute , Karnal, IndiaPublished online: 09 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: O. S. Tomar , Raj K. Gupta & J. C. Dagar (1998) Afforestation techniquesand evaluation of different tree species for waterlogged saline soils in semiarid tropics, Arid SoilResearch and Rehabilitation, 12:4, 301-316, DOI: 10.1080/15324989809381520

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15324989809381520

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Afforestation Techniques and Evaluation of DifferentTree Species for Waterlogged Saline Soils in Semiarid

Tropics

O. S. TOMAR, RAJ K. GUPTA, AND J. C. DAGAR

Central Soil Salinity Research Institute

Karnal, India

Long-term field studies were conducted on about three dozen woody perennialspecies to develop suitable techniques for afforestation of waterlogged saline soils inarid and semiarid regions of India. The soils of the study area were saline sandyloams with a preponderance of chloride and sulfates of Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+. Thesoil's initial electrolytic conductivity (ECe) was 36.4 dS m-1 in the upper 30 cm.The water table was shallow, fluctuating between 1.5 m depth to the surface indifferent seasons of the year, and the water was brackish (average EC was 29.8 dSm - 1 ). Three methods of planting, namely, ridge-trench, subsurface, and furrow, werecompared. The furrow technique provided favorable niches for plant survival andgrowth and was also the most economical for such soils. Prosopis juliflora,Tamarix sp., Casuarina glauca, Acacia farnesiana, A. nilotica, A. tortilis, and Par-kinsonia aculeata were found to be the most promising species for these saline soils.Casuarina glauca and Salvadora oleoides survived even prolonged stagnation offloodwaters for 9 months.

Keywords biomass, bulk density, electrolytic conductivity, exotic species, furrowtechnique, leaching, ridge-trench method, subsurface planting, water table

In India, ~8.5 χ 10 6 ha ha are subjected to waterlogging, and 8.1 χ 10 6 ha are

suffering from salinity and sodicity problems (Singh, 1992). The salt-affected areas

occur under different environmental conditions and have different morphological,

physical, chemical, and biological properties. Secondary salinization is rapidly

increasing in irrigated areas. These saline soils are universally low in fertility and

difficult for conventional agricultural use. Subsurface drainage is the most effective

tool to wash out salts in saline soils, but this method is costly. However, such lands

can effectively be utilized for salt-tolerant biological systems, and this practice is a

cheaper alternative. Rehabilitation of salt-affected lands through forestry would

require effective management practices, developing appropriate techniques for plan-

ting, and selection of the most suitable plant species for the particular agroclimatic

region. For more than a decade, the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute

(CSSRI), Karnal, has been conducting several long-term field experiments for

developing suitable techniques for growing salt-tolerant trees. About three dozen

tree species have been evaluated for use in the saline waterlogged soils of semiarid

regions. Details of these growth techniques and the performance of tree species

evaluated are reported in this article.

Received 13 June 1997; accepted 25 March 1998.The authors are grateful to the director of the institute for getting the work initiated, for encour-

agement, and for providing the necessary facilities.Address correspondence to Dr. O. S. Tomar, Principal Scientist, Central Soil Salinity Research

Institute, Zarifa Farm, Kachhwa Road, Karnal 132001, India.

Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation, 12:301-316,1998Copyright © 1998 Taylor & Francis

0890-3069/98 $12.00 +.00 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

302

Materials and Methods

O. S. Tomar et al.

Situation and Climatic Parameters

The experiments were conducted at the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute(CSSRI) Research Farm at Sampla in Haryana (28°46'N and 78°46'E, Figure 1). Theexperiments were initiated in 1982 at this site, which represents a typical water-logged saline soil in a subtropical semiarid region. The annual rainfall varied from175 mm in 1987 to 1310 mm in 1975 (long-term average is 630 mm from 1959 to1993). More than 80% of the precipitation generally occurs during the monsoonseason (July-September). Evaporation, on average, exceeds rainfall except duringJuly and August. The mean monthly temperature varied from 21°C in January to40.5°C in May during the study period (Figure 2).

Soil and Water Analysis

Seasonal variations in salt and moisture status of soil profiles and fluctuations in thewater table were studied in a field microplot. The soils in the plot are sandy loam intexture (coarse loamy, mixed, Hyperthermic Camborthids) and contain high concen-trations of chlorides and sulfates of Na+, Ca 2 + , and Mg 2 +. Groundwater sampleswere collected periodically from piezometric tubes. Soil samples were collected at 15cm depth intervals down to the underlying water table and analyzed for physi-cochemical properties. Bulk densities of the different soil layers were determinedfrom intact cores extracted with a core sampler (10 cm in diameter and 15 cm inlength). Porosity of the soil was calculated using bulk density data of different layers

;3 β < )72°1 /--""·< βο°'

ί ¿

V r r

72° βθ°

1 88o1 '

INDIA

Location of Haryana

y

700 KM ,

8Θ°

9β°'3β°-

}

C

-31e

ί-2β°

-28°

73°' 7e"1

HARYANALocation of Samplo

Ι00ΚΜ

73°

Λs

76°

77°'

/ (

" ^ (

if"77°

3O°-

29°-

vj

FIGURE 1 Location map of experimental area within the state of Haryana, India.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Trees for Saline Soils 303

4 0 0

I§ • 2 4 0

σoc

8 0

Δ Rainfall

Ο Evaporation

• Temperature

^/ S ι—Λ"·—0°

—Λ—Δ—££

^ H

£~-L·—A—Δ. ι ι ι ι ι I I

5 0

oo

S3

25 σ

a>CL

Ε

M M J

Months

Ν D

FIGURE 2 Annual fluctuations of climatic parameters in the study area during theperiod 1982-1994.

using the formula

D.% pore space = 100 - -— χ 100

where Db is bulk density and Dp is particle density. The soil profile was taken andanalyzed at the time of initiation of the experiments. Thereafter, soil samples weretaken at regular intervals during May and June. Abrupt changes in salinity wereobserved when irrigation was discontinued after 3 years of plantation. Salinityunder different plantations observed during the establishment stage (3 years) hasbeen taken into account. Soil and water analyses were carried out for pH, EC, andcation and anion content following standard practices (Jackson, 1967). The soil wasalso analyzed for texture and bulk density. The water table depth and initial salinityof the soil and underlying groundwater of the experimental area were recorded. Soilsalinity was monitored along two sides of the individual saplings by collectingsamples at 15 cm depth intervals adjacent to the trees. EC of the soil saturationextract was measured by a microprocessor conductivity meter.

Planting Techniques

For successful establishment of tree species in highly saline soils, appropriate tech-niques are needed to improve soil conditions. To provide better aeration and avoidexcessive salinization, planting on high ridges was often considered beneficial forestablishing tree plantations. This method was compared with the subsurface plan-ting method in a field experiment initiated in July 1982 (Figure 3). Nine-month-old

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

304 O. S. Tomar et al.

150

FIGURE 3 Salt distribution as indicated by ECe under (a) ridge-trench, (b) sub-surface, and (c) furrow planting methods in waterlogged saline soils.

saplings of nine tree species [Acacia nilotica Delile ssp. indica (Benth.) Brenan, A.tortilis Hayne, Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh., E. tereticornis Sm., Leucaena leuco-cephala (Lamk.) de Wit, Prosopis juliflora DC, Syzygium cuminii (Linn.) Skeels,Tamarindus indica Linn., and Terminalia arjuna (Roxb.) Wight & Arn.] wereplanted, keeping row to row and plant to plant spacings at 2.5 and 2 m, respectively.The saplings were transplanted in pits (15 cm diameter) dug out to a depth of 45 cmwith a tractor-driven auger; the saplings were planted at a depth of 30 cm from thesurface. Soil samples were collected from the pits (30-45 cm depth) before irrigationto determine the range of salinity within the future rhizosphere zone. Earthen ringswere provided around each sapling for retaining irrigation water. Saplings were alsoplanted on 40 cm high ridges, which were 1.6, 3.0, and 4.5 m wide at top, middle,and bottom, respectively. For salinity appraisal, soil samples were collected at 15 cmintervals before irrigation.

During this study, our observations indicated that the greater the surface areaof the ridges, the more salt accumulated in the surface 1 m root zone of ridge-planted trees. Second, in the subsurface planting method the roots encountered a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Trees for Saline Soils 305

smaller saline transmission zone. Therefore refinement of the subsurface plantingmethod and the furrow planting technique was developed (Figure 3). In this tech-nique, a tractor-driven furrow maker was used to create about 60 cm wide and 20cm deep furrows. Nine tree species [Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn., A. nilotica,Casuarina cunninghamiana Miq., C. equisetifolia Linn., C. glauca Sieb, ex Spreng.,Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh., Parkinsonia aculeata Linn., Tamarindus indicaLinn., and Terminalia arjuna (Roxb.) Wight & Arn.] (20 saplings each) were trans-planted at the base of the furrows. These furrows were subsequently used for irrigat-ing the tree saplings. The spacings were kept as in earlier methods. Survival percent-age, height, and diameter at stump height (5 cm) and breast height (1.37 m) weremeasured from time to time in each case. When irrigated, the water was stored in awider channel. Salinity varied in the vicinity of this wide channel, which was alsomonitored, and salt effects on tree growth was noted, but the data are not given herefor the sake of brevity. At later stages, when the superiority of the furrow plantingmethod was established, additional species, including 20 exotic species each having78 saplings, were screened with this planting method. When the plants were estab-lished, regular soil samples were collected from different depths within the vicinity ofeach tree, and the weighted salinity of the root zone was computed. After carefulmonitoring of the soil under each method of planting, we found that after stoppingthe irrigation, there was great heterogeneity in the salinity of the field. To assess thesurvival and growth of individual tree species, the mean values were indicated withtheir deviation values. Similarly, the variation in the salinity in different blocks hasbeen indicated by the deviation from the mean values. The soil parameters andgrowth performance of the trees were computed accordingly.

Estimation of Aboveground Biomass

To estimate aboveground biomass, five trees having different heights and diametersrepresenting each of the nine species were harvested. Tree girth and height weremeasured, and dry biomass of the bole, branches, and entire tree were measured ineach case after segregation.

Results and Discussion

Salinity of Soil and Groundwater

The data on water-filled porosity of the original soil indicated that 70-75% of totalporosity of the surface soil layer (0-15 cm) remained saturated with water duringthe greater part of the year (Figure 4a) due to the high water table. Depending onthe degree of salinity, soil samples gained up to 8% moisture (oven dry basis) fromair, likely due to the hygroscopic nature of salts within the soil. With the onset ofmonsoons, there was a rapid rise in the groundwater table (Figure 4b), which thenremained very close to the ground surface during July-August. Thereafter, the watertable gradually decreased. The minimum groundwater salinity (2 dS m"1) wasobserved during the monsoon and was apparently due to dilution effects, while themaximum salinity (46 dS m"1) occurred during the drier summer season (April-May). The salinization continued from January through June. Salt accumulation inthe surface (0-15 cm) layer varied throughout the year and decreased with depth atall times. During periods of high evaporative demand, the zone of salt accumulation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

306 O. S. Tomar et al.

~ 80O)

Εo

6 0

4 0

O

6 0

o Ridge configuration

• Original soil

(a)

X)r= 120o

CO

180soil salinity(0-15 cm) -

J a n F M A M J J A S O N D

Months

7 0

O

CO

O)

FIGURE 4 (a) Seasonal variation of water filled porosity in original soil versusridge configurations, (b) Seasonal variations in water table depth and soil salinitywithin the 0-15 cm depth.

increased up to 30 cm depth, and lower layers appeared to be in equilibrium withsalinity of the groundwater table (Tomar & Gupta, 1985).

The initial data on the soil profile and groundwater analysis indicated that thesoil pH (soil:water suspension 1:2) over the entire profile was almost constant at7.2 and water was constant at pH 7.4. EC of the saturated soil ranged from 25 to 80dS m" 1 in the 0-30 cm layer (average 36.4 dS m" 1 ) and gradually decreased withdepth to an average of 21.4 dS m" 1 at 120 cm depth. The bulk density was 1.51-1.69 g cm" 3 (Table 1).

Groundwater was also highly saline, with an average EC of 29.8 dS m" 1. Mostof the soil extract salts were Na+, Ca 2 + , and Mg 2 + chlorides, and the same was truefor water.

The soil salinity (EC) data (Table 2) indicated that there was great variation insalinity within the soil profile under the various planting methods, ranging from 8.1to 54.9 dS m " 1 in the upper 30 cm and 2.6-22.0 dS m" 1 in lower depths. Thevariance in EC was highest in the surface layer and decreased with depth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

TABLE 1 Soil and groundwater characteristics of the experimental site during the initial stage of the experiment

Soildepth(cm)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

0-30 15.5 11.230-60 13.3 17.360-120 12.8 19.6

Ground-water composition"

Bulkdensity

(gem-3)

1.691.551.51

PH

7.27.27.1

7.4

EC

(dS/πΓ1)

36.423.521.4

29.8

Na+

85.564.072.0

110.5

Cation content

C a + 2

(mmol L " 1 )

141.084.556.5

65.0

Mg + 2

66.538.533.5

56.5

Anioncontents

Cl" HCO3(mmol L " 1 )

495300233

320

1.151.301.15

3.0

SAR

6.05.88.0

9.9

SAR (sodium adsorption ratio) = Na+/N/(Ca2+ + Mg2+)/2, where all solute concentrations are in mmol L~ '." The sulfate content in groundwater was 20 mmol L" l .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

308 O. S. Tomar et al.

TABLE 2 Soil salinity parameters (ECe dS m 1) of profiles for differentplanting methods and tree species

Species

Acacia nilotica

Eucalyptuscatnaldulensis

Terminaliaarjuna

Prosopisjuliflora

Acacia tortilis

Eucalyptustereticornis

Leucaenaleucocephala

Acaciaauriculiformis

Casuarinaequisetifolia

C. glaucaC. cunninghamianaTamarindus indicaParkinsonia

aculeata

Plantingmethod

RidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceFurrow

Furrow

FurrowFurrowFurrowFurrow

0-30

32.0 ± 8.921.6 ± 5.98.1 ± 0.9

24.4 ± 4.512.6 ± 5.911.0 ± 2.627.9 ± 10.316.8 ± 7.08.6 ± 2.4

34.9 ± 10.114.3 ± 5.232.4 ± 9.310.8 + 2.054.9 ± 10.728.1 ± 8.732.8 ± 8.311.0 ±3.122.4 ± 7.1

15.9 ± 4.5

21.1 ± 8.914.3 ± 1.916.0 ± 4.117.3 ± 7.7

Soil depth (cm)

30-60

20.8 ± 3.99.0 ± 3.56.4 ± 0.4

20.1 ± 1.24.5 ± 2.0

11.4 ±2.119.1 ± 2.05.7 ± 1.37.1 ± 2.5

19.7 ± 2.98.1 ± 4.2

22.0 ± 5.15.4 ± 1.7

22.0 ± 5.911.0 ± 4.521.9 ± 4.24.8 ± 0.7

12.4 ± 6.0

10.2 ± 4.6

15.3 ± 6.811.3 ± 1.612.3 ± 3.413.4 ± 4.8

60-120

18.8 ± 2.57.3 ± 3.24.8 ± 0.4

11.1 ± 1.33.6 ± 2.47.4 ± 2.08.8 ± 3.03.4 ± 1.36.4 ± 2.0

16.8 ± 2.46.2 ± 3.6

16.1 + 4.33.6 ± 1.9

15.4 ± 1.510.5 ± 6.517.8 ± 1.22.6 ± 0.69.2 ± 5.7

9.1 ± 4.2

7.7 ± 1.77.9 ± 1.07.0 ± 2.09.0 ± 6.2

Ridge-trench, Subsurface, and Furrow Planting Techniques

Successful afforestation of highly saline soils generally requires improvement in soilconditions through the application of appropriate planting techniques. For provid-ing better aeration, foresters consider it beneficial to plant trees on high ridges inwaterlogged saline soils. In our experiments, however, we observed that a greaterexposed surface area of ridges caused substantial salt accumulation in the surface 1m root zone of ridge-planted trees (Figure 3). In contrast, under the subsurfaceplanting method, roots were encountering a "milder" saline transmission zone andwere meeting most of their water requirement from the phreatic zone. Difficulty ofconserving rainwater on the ridge tops and the presence of salts causing highersusceptibility to soil erosion were the other disadvantages encountered with ridgeplanting.

Further refinements to the subsurface planting method were introduced withfurrow planting techniques. The furrows were subsequently used for irrigating the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Trees for Saline Soils 309

tree saplings. In addition to reducing the water application costs and increasinguniformity in water application, downward and lateral fluxes of water and saltsfrom these furrows helped to create zones of favorable low salinity below theirbases, especially when low-salinity irrigation water was used. Creation of such low"salt niches" favored the establishment of young tree seedlings. With the furrowplanting technique, salt concentrations were kept lower in the rooting zone of trees,such that the trees were able to escape the adverse effects of high salinity. Moreover,the furrow system seems more viable than the other techniques from a practicalpoint of view for undertaking large-scale plantation of trees.

Soil Salinity Parameters for Different Planting Techniques

After 3 years of plantation, when EC was measured during the hottest months(May-June), we found that there was great variation in EC values even in the plotswith the same planting method and plants of the same species. The variation andincrease of EC was rapid when irrigation was stopped completely at this stage.Because of this, no leaching took place during the dry season, and salt accumulatedin the upper layers. In general, there was a higher salinity in the soil profiles with theridge-trench method of planting. In the case of the subsurface and furrow methodswith various plant species, EC values were comparably much lower (Table 2). Theseresults show that, irrespective of species, there was a strong heterogeneity in soilsalinity in all fields.

Survival and Growth Performance of Tree Species

Despite the initial good survival of all ridge-trench-planted species (except Syzygiumcuminii) in the first year, the establishment was better for the subsurface methodduring consequent years of growth (Table 3). Eucalyptus tereticornis did not surviveafter 4 years in either of the methods used. However, trees such as Prosopis juliflora,Acacia nilotica, A. tortilis, and Leucaena leucocephala survived both high salinityand waterlogging, prevailing even under subsurface planting (Table 3). The speciesthat failed over the long run include Tamarindus indica, Syzygium cuminii, Acaciaauriculiformis, Terminalia arjuna, and Eucalyptus tereticornis under waterloggedconditions, though many of these are reported to survive saline water irrigation upto 17 dS m"1 (Arar, 1975; Bangash, 1977). During earlier pot studies, Tomar andGupta (1985) found that if salinity was not associated with waterlogging, Acaciaauriculiformis, A. nilotica, and Terminalia arjuna could survive salinity up to ECe =26 dS m"1 for their establishment, but these species did not do well in terms offurther growth under these adverse conditions. Leucaena leucocephala could notsurvive on ridges because of the high salinity. Prosopis juliflora, Acacia tortilis, A.nilotica, and Casuarina equisetifolia are found highly tolerant both to salinity andaeration stress (Table 3). Other disadvantages observed with ridge planting were thedifficulty of conserving rainwater on the ridge tops and the presence of salts causinghigher susceptibility of soil to erosion. Prosopis juliflora performed well under bothridge and subsurface planting, though growth (height and diameter) was betterunder the latter. Acacia tortilis and A. nilotica clearly grew better under subsurfaceconditions (Table 3).

Data represented in Table 3 show that the establishment and growth of thevarious tree species markedly improved with furrow planting. Initially, Acacianilotica and Eucalyptus camaldulensis performed better than Terminalia arjuna

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

oTABLE 3 Survival,grown with different

Parameters

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

height, and diameter at breast height of different species at different intervalsmethods of planting (mean

Plantingmethod

RidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrow

RidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrow

RidgeSubsurfaceFurrow

1

100 + 0100 + 0100 ± 01.78 ± 0.461.16 ± 0.592.40 + 0.22

31 + 828 + 1825 + 4

ι ± S.D.)

3

Acacia nilotica100 + 0

60 + 4090 ± 1 0

3.23 ± 0.443.26 ± 2.265.22 + 0.62

48 ±1151 + 3868 ±12

Year of planting

5

31 ±1150 ± 5 090 ± 1 0

3.48 ± 0.285.86 ± 2.525.63 ± 0.73

50 ± 1 184 ± 6 783 ± 2 1

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

100 ± 0100 + 0100 + 01.22 + 0.151.19 + 0.133.27 + 0.22

16 ± 522 + 9

8 ± 1

100 ± 0100 ± 0100 + 0

44 ±2138 ±2280+17

1.85 ±0.162.89 ± 0.556.40 + 0.72

22 ± 430 ±1380 ±12

Terminalia arjuna25 ± 1 762 ± 3 890 + 10

0 ± 031 ± 2 165 ± 2 6

—

5.23 ± 1.438.24 ± 0.65

—

60 ± 1 1100 ± 4 2

0 ± 050 ±5050 + 38

7

6 ± 050 ±5090 ± 1 0

3.80 ± 06.31 ± 2.706.04 ± 0.74

53 ± 0107 ±44109 ± 27

0 ± 017 ±2130 + 22

—

5.45 ± 1.539.10 ± 1.22

—

92 ± 2 2112 ± 4 6

0 ± 06 + 0

10+17

of time when

9

0 ± 050 ± 5 090 ± 1 0

—

6.41 ± 2.756.70 ± 0.74

—

142 ± 72144 ± 2 3

0 ± 00 ± 0

20 ± 1 4—

—

11.11 ±4.85——

143 ± 55

0 ± 00 ± 00 ± 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)

Height (m)

Diameter (m)

RidgeSubsurfaceFurrowRidgeSubsurfaceFurrow

RidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurface

RidgeSubsurface

RidgeSubsurface

RidgeSubsurface

RidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurface

RidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurfaceRidgeSubsurface

0.80 ± 0.270.90 ± 0.231.02 ± 0.35

11 + 1023 ±923 ±8

100 ±0100 ±0

2.17 + 0.451.91 ± 0.53

27 + 428 + 11

100 ± 075 ±18

0.91 + 0.201.47 + 0.43

13 + 326 + 6

1.29 ± 0.362.26 ± 1.272.42 ± 0.57

32 ±1638 ±1228 ±12

Prosopis juliflora100 ±0100 ±0

3.89 ± 0.294.97 ± 1.18

37 ± 267 + 21

Acacia tortilis75 ±1856 ±13

1.78 ± 0.693.48 ± 1.53

26 ±461 ±24

Leucaena leucocephala100 + 0100 ± 01.16 ±0.131.65 ± 0.60

19 ±324 ±10

13 ±862 ±30

2.15 ± 0.444.43 ± 1.72

31 ±1269 ±10

Eucalyptus tereticornis100 ±069 ±29

1.04 ± 0.230.99 ± 0.10

16 ±1021 ±9

0 ± 031 ±25

—2.52 ± 1.0

—38 ±19

—4.30 ± 1.722.48 ± 0.60

—44 ±2636 ±16

100 ± 0100 ±0

5.51 ± 0.777.25 ± 1.18

87 ± 4110 ±23

25 ±1356 ±13

2.76 ± 0.884.65 ± 1.37

34 ±1485 ±35

13 ±856 + 22

3.70 ± 1.146.26 ± 2.21

39 ±1581 ±10

0 ± 00 ± 0————

—5.10 ± 02.83 ± 0.64

—

124 ± 039 ±16

100 ± 0100 ± 0

6.22 ± 0.777.53 ± 1.00124 ± 7149 ± 36

25 ±1356 ±13

2.95 ± 0.884.89 ± 1.32

37 ±1396 ±45

13 ± 850 ±18

4.40 ± 1.486.57 ± 2.35

50 ±2599 ±15

0 ± 00 ± 0————

——————

100 ± 094 ±3

6.40 ± 0.648.06 ± 0.91135 ± 33178 ± 41

25 ± 1 350 ± 1 1

3.11 ±0.905.31 ± 2.06

46 ±12108 ± 65

0 ± 038 ±22

—6.91 ± 2.37

—117 ±28

0 ± 00 ± 0————

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

1*1H—to

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Parameters

Survival (%)Height (m)Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)Height (m)Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)Height (m)Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)Height (m)Diameter (mm)

Survival (%)Height (m)Diameter (nm)

Plantingmethod

FurrowFurrowFurrow

FurrowFurrowFurrow

FurrowFurrowFurrow

FurrowFurrowFurrow

FurrowFurrowFurrow

1

Year of planting

3

Casuarina glauca100 ± 01.15 ±0.31

11+4

70 ±222.55 ± 1.08

19 ± 9Casuarina equisetifolia

100 + 01.56 ± 0.17

16 ± 8

95 ± 53.30 ± 0.32

23 ± 4Casuarina cunninghamiana

95 + 51.29 ± 0.34

18 ± 2

95 ± 53.35 ± 0.20

32 ±3

Parkinsonia aculeata90 ±10

1.84 ± 0.2312 + 2

80 ±142.80 ± 0.33

21 ± 4

Acacia auriculiformis

95 ± 51.20 ±0.11

5 ± 2

40 ±202.03 + 0.15

14 ±5

5

60 ±323.39 ± 1.58

28 ± 7

85 + 103.80 ± 0.40

26 ± 5

90 ±103.90 ± 0.18

37 ± 5

75 ± 93.50 ± 0.49

68 + 7

5 ± 02.42 ± 0

17 ± 0

7

55 ±364.43 ± 1.65

45 ±24

85 ±104.52 ± 0.67

42 ±10

65 + 174.60 ± 0.35

46 ± 5

75 ± 94.03 ± 0.64

78 ±10

5 ± 02.50 + 0

19 ± 0

9

55 ±365.54 ± 1.65

72 ±20

85 ±105.05 ± 0.57

55 ± 5

45 ±205.01 + 0.52

55 ± 7

75 ± 94.29 ± 0.55

90 ±12

5 ± 02.70 ± 0

23 ± 0

Syzygium cuminii was also tried but did not survive even in the first year.Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Trees for Saline Soils 313

under all salinity levels. When the groundwater salinity was exposed to higher levelsafter stopping irrigation after 3 years of planting, however, T. arjuna died, while E.camaldulensis survived only up to 20% for the furrow planting method and A.nilotica survived up to 50% and 90% for subsurface and furrow planting, respec-tively (Table 3).

Thus, with the furrow planting techniques, it was possible to keep salt concen-trations lower in the rooting zones of trees, such that they were able to escape theadverse effects of salinity. Moreover, such a system seems more viable from a practi-cal viewpoint for undertaking large-scale plantation of trees. Additionally, water forirrigation in the ridge-trench and subsurface planting techniques was stored in awide channel from where the irrigation water was used to be taken through earthenpitchers or buckets. Those plants that were nearer to the storage channel performedwell because of diffusion of moisture and also because of leaching of salts, hence thelow salinity within the root zone. This phenomenon was observed up to 9 m fromthe storage channel. The ECe at distances of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 m was 18.8, 27.0, 28.3,34.2, and 43.1 dS m"1 , respectively, in the upper 15 cm of the soil layer. Below 15cm, salinity was almost uniform (33.3-37.6 dS m " 1 in the surface 30 cm layer and10.7-12.8 dS m " 1 in the lower profile). When irrigation was stopped, plants beyond7-9 m distance from the storage channel started dying, and there were only a fewhighly salt-tolerant trees, such as P. juliflora that survived after 5 years of growth.

Biomass Production

The data on biomass indicated that biomass of Prosopis juliflora and Casuarinaglauca 13987 was the highest (98 and 96 Mg ha"1), followed by Acacia nilotica(52-67 Mg ha"1) and A. tortilis (41 Mg ha"1) when planted with subsurface or

TABLE 4 Biomass estimation of trees harvested from the experimental site

Species

Acacia nilotica

A. tortilis

Eucalyptuscamaldulensis

Prosopis juliflora

Casuarinaequisetifolia

C. glauca 13987C. obesa 27Leucaena

leucocephalaTamarix sp.

Methodof

planting

SubsurfaceFurrowSubsurfaceRidgeFurrow

SubsurfaceRidgeFurrow

FurrowFurrowSubsurface

Furrow

Range ofsoil salinityat 0-120 cm

depth(ECdSm"1)

10.6-25.311.1-21.06.8-28.1

19.7-29.110.0-17.9

10.3-24.023.5-57.55.6-20.7

6.5-33.99.0-19.56.9-23.9

8.2-21.3

Range ofwater table

salinity(ECdScm"1)

27-3317-2712-33

10-35

32-36

10-31

12-1912-1910-25

10-32

Estimatedbiomass

(Mgha"1)

5267416

28

986528

963830

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

314 O. S. Tomar et al.

TABLE 5 Survival and growth performance of tree species after 30months of transplanting with the furrow method

Tree species

Acacia farnesianaProsopis julifloraParkinsonia aculeataPithecellobium dukeAcacia niloticaCrescentia alataGuazuma ulmifoliaLeucaena leucocephalaGaesalpinia eriostachysAcacia pennatula"Leucaena shannoniiCaesalpinia velutinaSenna atomariaAcacia catechuA. deamiiAlbizia caribaeaA. guachepeleAteleia herbertsmithiiCassia siameaEnterolobium cyclocarpumHaematoxylon brasilettoSamanea saman

Survival(%)

81766456564732261715543000000000

Height(m)

2.672.081.792.081.260.480.901.890.492.670.520.170.28

Diameter atstumps height

(cm)

4.33.72.63.72.11.21.92.40.64.30.70.60.5

1 Mouse damage observed at seedling stage.

furrow techniques (Table 4), proving that these are the suitable species for saline,waterlogged soils.

Promising Tree Species

In addition to appropriate planting techniques, afforestation programs for water-logged saline soils in arid and semiarid regions also require the proper selection oftree species by taking into account the local agroclimate, purpose of planting, andtolerance to salinity and waterlogging. In addition to intergeneric and interspeciesvariations in forest species, tolerance to adverse soil conditions also varies with treegrowth stage. Besides salt tolerance as a selection criterion for a specific site, socio-economic factors should also be weighted when planning afforestation programs. Ingeneral, because their growth is stunted under high-salinity conditions, species forfuelwood are rated better on highly saline soils than timber and fruit species.Recently, however, attention is being paid to accommodate the species of industrialimportance for highly saline degraded areas, including coastal salt marshes. Someoil-yielding species such as Salicornia bigelovii, Salvadora pérsica, Pandanus spp.,and Terminalia catappa are gaining importance for highly saline areas or when irri-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Trees for Saline Soils

TABLE 6 Soil tolerance of trees used for firewood

315

Salinitylevel of

satisfactorygrowth (dS m"1)

Relativetolerance Trees and shrubs

ECe > 25 High Acacia farnesiana, Parkinsonia aculeata,Prosopis juliflora, Salvadora pérsica,S. oleoides, and Tamarix spp.

ECe10-25 Moderate Acacia nilotica, A. tortilis, A. pennatula,Callistemon lanceolatus, Casuarinaequisetifolia, C. glauca, C. obesa,C. cunninghamiana, Eucalyptus camaldulensis,Leucaena leucocephala, and Pithecellobium dulce

ECe < 10 Sensitive Acacia auriculiformis, A. deami, Albizziacaribea, A. guachepele, Ateleia herbertsmithii,Caesalpinia eriostachys, C. velutina, Crescentiaalata, Enterollobium cyclocarpum, Eucalyptustereticornis, Guazuma ulmifolia, Haematoxylonbrasiletto, Leucaena shannonii, Samanea saman,Senna atomaria, Syzygium cuminii, Tamarindusindica, Terminalia arjuna

gated with seawater (BOSTID, 1990; Dagar & Singh, 1994; Clark, 1994; Dagar &Tomar, 1996).

Comparing the three planting techniques evaluated in this study, we believe thatthe furrow planting technique was superior to the other two techniques for water-logged saline soils. Therefore the performance of additional indigenous and exoticspecies was tested with the furrow technique (Tables 3 and 5). Some exotic speciescollected from arid and semiarid regions of Africa and Latin America were evalu-ated. Species having survival rates of 50% or higher and growth rates comparable tothat of Acacia nilotica could be considered promising for waterlogged saline soils(Table 5). These species need longer term evaluation, however, to assess their adap-tation to other soils and agroclimatic conditions of the arid and semiarid regions ofIndia. Tree species such as Acacia auriculiformis, Parkinsonia aculeata, Casuarinaglauca, C. equisetifolia, and C. cunninghamiana were grown by the furrow technique.Our experiments showed that A. auriculiformis (Table 3) could not survive beyond 3years at a soil salinity of 22.4 dS m~1 and could show only up to 5% survival at lowsalinity. In contrast, P. aculeata, C. glauca, C. equisetifolia, and C. cunninghamianahad greater than 50% survival at all salinity levels. The growth performance, includ-ing biomass production of C. glauca 13987, however, was much more satisfactory incomparison with many other species.

Based upon our observations on the performance of about three dozen treespecies, woody species Tamarix sp., Prosopis juliflora, Acacia farnesiana, Parkinsoniaaculeata, Salvadora pérsica, and S. oleoides have been rated most tolerant to water-logged salinity and could be grown satisfactorily on soils with salinity up to 25-50dS m""1 in their root transmission zone. Species like Pithecellobium dulce, Acacianilotica, A. tortilis, Casuarina glauca, C. equisetifolia, C. obesa, C. cunninghamiana,Eucalyptus camaldulensis, and Leucaena leucocephala could grow on sites with ECe

varying from 10 to 25 dS m"1. Other species like Eucalyptus tereticornis, Terminalia

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4

316 O.S. Tomar et al.

arjuna, Tamarindus indica, and Acacia auriculiformis could grow satisfactorily atsites with ECe < 10 dS m"1 (Table 6).

Recently, there was an extreme flood, and water within the plantation remainedstagnant for about 9 months (September 1995 to May 1996). Most of the treesevaluated in this study died because of water stagnation and anaerobic conditions.Exceptions included Casuarina glauca and Tamarix sp. (in the experimental area)and Salvadora oleoides and S. pérsica (in the nonexperimental area, standing natu-rally on highly saline waterlogged soils in the locality), which survived. Prosopisjuliflora, Parkinsonia aculeata, and Acacia nilotica trees that were partly submerged(touching crowns) revived after the floodwaters receded.

Conclusion

Our measurements of soil salinity using the three planting techniques (ridge-trench,subsurface, and furrow) over 9 years showed that there was a considerable variationof soil salinity in the field, particularly after ceasing irrigation after 3 years of plan-tation. Based on this long-term study, we concluded that the waterlogged, salineconditions most affected the survival and growth of trees used for afforestation dueto salt accumulation near the rooting zone. Survival was directly attributed togroundwater fluctuations, and the underground water was saline. Saline soils of aridand semiarid regions with underlying saline groundwater may be successfully affor-ested using the furrow planting technique. Tree species such as Prosopis juliflora,Tamarix sp., Acacia farnesiana, Parkinsonia aculeata, Salvadora pérsica, and S.oleoides may be cultivated in highly saline soils (ECe up to 50 dS m"1). Species suchas Acacia nilotica, A. tortilis, Casuarina glauca, C. equisetifolia, C. obesa, Eucalyptuscamaldulensis, Pithecellobium dulce, and Leucaena leucocephala may be cultivated onmoderately waterlogged saline soils (ECe up to 25 dS m"1). Casuarina glauca, Salva-dora pessica, and S. oleoides also resist the stagnation of water.

References

Arar, A. 1975. Quality of water in relation to irrigation of sandy soil. FAO Soils Bulletin25:73-83.

Bangash, S. H. 1977. Salt tolerance of forest tree species as determined by germination ofseeds at different levels. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 17:93-97.

BOSTID. 1990. Saline agriculture, Board on Science and Technology for International Devel-opment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Clark, A. 1994. Samphire: From sea to shining seed. Aramco World 45(6):2-9.Dagar, J . C., and N. T. Singh. 1994. Agroforestry options in the reclamation of problem soils,

pp. 65-102, in P. K. Thampan, ed., Trees and tree farming. Peekay Tree Crops Develop-ment Foundation, Gandhi Nagar, Cochin, India.

Dagar, J . C., and O. S. Tomar, 1996. Appropriate trees for salinity related problematic coastalareas. Tree World 5(8):3-4.

Jackson, M. L. 1967. Soil chemical analysis. Asia Publishing House, New Delhi.Singh, N. T. 1992. Dry land salinity in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, pp. 179-248, in H. E.

Dregne, ed., Degradation and restoration of arid lands. International Center for Arid andSemi-arid Land Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Tomar, O. S., and R. Κ. Gupta. 1985. Performance of some forest tree species in saline soilsunder shallow saline water table conditions. Plant and Soil 87:329-333.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:43

20

Oct

ober

201

4