This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 09:46Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Arid Land Research andManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasr20

Evaluation of Long-TermManagement-InducedChanges in Sodic Soils ofSemiarid IndiaRaj-Kumar a , Rachhpal-Singh a , N. T. Singh b ,R. L. Ahuja c & S. K. Ghabru ca Punjab Agricultural University , Ludhiana,Indiab Central Soil Salinity Research Institute ,Karnal, Indiac C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University ,Hisar, IndiaPublished online: 30 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Raj-Kumar , Rachhpal-Singh , N. T. Singh , R. L. Ahuja &S. K. Ghabru (2001) Evaluation of Long-Term Management-Induced Changes inSodic Soils of Semiarid India, Arid Land Research and Management, 15:1, 89-96

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15324980118555

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Arid Land Research and Management, 15 :89È96, 2001Copyright 2001 Taylor & Francis#0890-3069/01 $12.00 1 .00

Evaluation of Long-Term Management-InducedChanges in Sodic Soils of Semiarid India

RAJ-KUMARRACHHPAL-SINGH

Punjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana, India

N. T. SINGH

Central Soil Salinity Research InstituteKarnal, India

R. L. AHUJAS. K. GHABRUC.C.S. Haryana Agricultural UniversityHisar, India

Sodic soils of northwestern India (under common property rights) having three dif-ferent types of management for 20 years ( fencing, occasional cultivation, recla-mation with gypsum) and an adjoining non-sodic soil, were compared for changes inselected soil physical and chemical properties. Fencing resulted in growth of peren-nial vegetation and the large biomass so produced led to self-reclamation of thesurface horizon. All treatments resulted in considerable decrease in pH, EC, andESP of the pedons. However, in the subsurface horizons pH and ESP remained inthe sodic range even after 20 years of reclamation with gypsum or due to accumula-tion of perennial vegetation biomass. In sodic soils under common property rights,where systematic reclamation with chemical amendments is not feasible, simplefencing or occasional cultivation on a long-term basis may slowly result in recla-mation of such lands.

Keywords common property rights, fencing, occasional cultivation, reclamation,sodic soil management

In India there are 8.36 3 106 ha of salt a†ected soils which include both saline aswell as sodic soils. Of the total area, 75% of the sodic soils occur in the plains of theIndus and Ganges Rivers. Despite large-scale reclamation of these salt a†ected soilsin the plains, vast tracts of these lands remain nonreclaimed, and most are undercommon property rights and diverse management systems. The present investiga-tion was undertaken to evaluate the changes in characteristics of a sodic soil underthree di†erent types of management for 20 years (fencing, occasional cultivation, andreclamation with gypsum) and an adjoining normal soil under rice-wheatrotation.

Received 4 February 2000; accepted 31 March 2000.This research was supported by Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal (ICAR), India.Address correspondence to Dr. Raj-Kumar, Department of Soils, Punjab Agricultural University,

Ludhiana-141004, India.

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E1

Som

em

orph

olog

ical

and

phys

ical

char

acte

rist

ics

ofth

eso

ilsas

a†ec

ted

bydi

†er

ent

man

agem

ent

syst

ems

for

20ye

ars

Ava

ilabl

ew

ater

Hyd

raul

icB

ulk

Tre

atm

ent

cont

ent

cond

ucti

vity

dens

ity

Sand

Silt

Cla

y(d

epth

,cm

)C

olor

Stru

ctur

ea

(kg

kg{1

)(m

ms

{1)

(Mg

kg{1

)(%

)(%

)(%

)

A.P

revi

ousl

yun

recl

aim

edso

dic

soil

Fen

cing

Surf

ace

(0È 8

)2.

5Y6/

41m

,sbk

0.12

15.

851.

5469

.625

.35.

1Su

bsur

face

(8È 1

52)

2.5Y

6/4È

10Y

R5/

42m

,sbk

È 3m

,sbk

0.09

0È0.

115

,0.

003

1.66

È 1.9

045

.0È 6

1.0

26.7

È 34.

89.

7È19

.7O

ccas

iona

lcu

ltiv

atio

nSu

rfac

e(0

È 13)

2.5Y

5/2

2m,s

bk0.

109

,0.

003

1.59

55.2

37.2

7.6

Subs

urfa

ce(1

3È15

5)2.

5YÈ 1

0YR

5/3

1f,p

lÈ2m

,sbk

0.06

7È0.

100

,0.

003

1.69

È 1.8

832

.5È 5

1.3

37.9

È 45.

88.

0È22

.4R

ecla

mat

ion

wit

hgy

psum

Surf

ace

(0È 2

0)2.

5Y4/

21m

,sbk

0.16

02.

072

1.75

42.0

49.1

8.9

Subs

urfa

ce(2

0È14

8)10

YR

5/4

1m,s

bkÈ m

assi

ve0.

092È

0.17

10.

09È 3

.33

1.58

È 1.8

935

.5È 5

9.6

30.4

È 48.

47.

5È21

.3

B.P

erpe

tual

lyir

riga

ted

cult

ivat

ed(n

orm

al)

soil

Surf

ace

(0È 1

6)10

YR

5/2

1m,s

bk0.

149

2.01

11.

7446

.643

.615

.8Su

bsur

face

(16È

160)

10Y

R4/

3È10

YR

5/4

1m,s

bkÈ 2

m,s

bk0.

111È

0.18

21.

33È 2

.56

1.54

È 1.7

934

.7È 4

3.4

37.2

È 45.

219

.4È 3

1.8

aG

rade

:15

wea

k,2

5m

oder

ate,

35

stro

ng;C

lass

:f5

Ðne,

m5

med

ium

;Typ

e:sb

k5

suba

ngul

arbl

ocky

,pl 5

plat

y.

90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Management-Induced Changes in Sodic Soils 91

The study was carried out at the research farm of the Central Soil SalinityResearch Institute (CSSRI), Karnal (76¡57 9 E and 29¡429 N), India, on a naturallyoccurring Zarifa Viran, a benchmark soil series, classiÐed as Typic Natrustalf(Murthy et al. 1982). The climate of the area is semiarid subtropical, with a meanannual rainfall and open pan evaporation of 711 mm and 380 mm, respectively.Investigations were made on four sites within 250È700 m of each other, which weresubjected to the following treatments : (a) Fencing, an original sodic soil that waskept fenced for about 20 years (presently this land supports luxurious perennialgrasses) ; (b) Occasional cultivation, cultivation occurred once to twice in a year toremove weeds ; (c) Reclamation with gypsum, reclamation was initiated 20 years agowith the application of gypsum (rice and wheat crops are grown in rotation everyyear) ; (d) Under perpetual irrigated cultivation, irrigated cultivation for more than 90years, rice-wheat rotation followed for the last 25 years (presently, the soil is non-sodic and non-saline).

Soil proÐles were excavated in the Ðeld and a morphological description foreach proÐle was recorded according to Soil Survey Division Sta† (1993). Soilsamples from each horizon were collected and analyzed in triplicate for soil physicaland chemical properties : available water content (Klute 1986), bulk density (Blakeand Hartge 1986), hydraulic conductivity (Klute and Dirksen 1986), particle sizeanalysis (Jackson 1975), pH, electrical conductivity, and organic carbon (Nelson andSommers 1982), content (Nelson 1982), cation exchange capacity (CEC) andCaCO3

exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) (Belyayeva 1967), and ionic compositionfrom a saturation extract was estimated following analytical techniques of Rhoades(1982). The data presented under the subsurface head are a range of values per-taining to a number of naturally distinct horizons. Moist color of these soils was adark yellowish brown with a hue of 2.5Y or 10YR, a value of 4 to 5, and a chromaof 2 to 4 (Table 1). The upper few centimeters of the occasionally cultivated andfenced soil were lighter in color with 2.5Y hue, value varying from 5 to 6 andchroma from 2 to 4. Texture of these soils, in general was dominantly loam, gradingto a sandy loam in upper few horizons of the fencing treatment and the surfacehorizon of the occasionally cultivated treatment. In general, the soil structure wasmainly moderate to strong, medium to coarse, and subangular blocky in the fenced,occasionally cultivated, and perpetually irrigated soils. Thin patchy to thin brokencutans were present in the subsurface layers of all the soils. Except for the soil underperpetual irrigated cultivation, all other soils were calcareous.

Sand, silt, and clay content ranged from 34.7 to 69.6%, 25 to 49%, and 5.1 to31.8%, respectively (Table 1). Bulk density ranged from 1.54 to 1.90 Mg m { 3 withminimum value being in the surface horizon of the soil under fencing treatment,which had higher organic carbon content. Hydraulic conductivity of all the horizonsof the fenced soil (except the surface horizon) and the occasionally cultivated treat-ment was almost zero. Surface layer of fenced sodic soil had an appreciable hydrau-lic conductivity of 5.85 m m s { 1 probably due to the self-reclamation by continuousvegetative cover under these conditions. Reclamation with gypsum resulted in anincrease in hydraulic conductivity. Available water content (water retained between] 0.03 MPa and ] 1.5 MPa) in these soils varied from 0.046 to 0.171 kg kg { 1 .

The (1 : 2 soil : water) of fenced and occasionally cultivated soils rangedpH2

between 8.8 and 10.8 (Table 2). In the fencing treatment the of the surfacepH2

horizon was lower than the underlying horizons. The of the gypsum-reclaimedpH2

soil varied from 8.7 in the surface horizon to 9.3 in the lower most horizon. Inperpetual irrigated cultivation soil, varied from 8.3 to 8.6. Electrical conductivi-pH2

ty of the soils other than the gypsum-reclaimed soil ranged from 0.44 to 3.83 dSm { 1 . (1 : 2 soil : water) of gypsum-reclaimed soil was appreciably lower, rangingEC2

between 0.37 to 0.57 dS m { 1 . Organic carbon in these soils decreased with depth(Table 2). Calcium carbonate was absent in the surface layer of fencing and perpetu-al irrigated cultivation treatments compared to 8.3 and 31.6 g kg { 1 in occasionally

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E2

Che

mic

alch

arac

teri

stic

sof

the

soils

afte

r20

year

s

pHE

CO

.C.

CaC

O3

CE

CT

reat

men

t(1

:2so

il:w

ater

)(d

Sm

{1)

(gkg

{1)

(gkg

{1)

(cm

olc

kg{1

)E

SP

A.P

revi

ousl

yun

recl

aim

edso

dic

soil

Fen

cing

Surf

ace

8.8

0.44

6.0

È5.

612

Subs

urfa

ce9.

7È10

.81.

19È 3

.83

0.5È

0.9

3.0È

15.9

8.6È

14.4

45È 9

3O

ccas

iona

lcu

ltiv

atio

nSu

rfac

e9.

90.

552.

28.

36.

452

Subs

urfa

ce10

.3È 1

0.6

1.59

È 3.0

00.

3È0.

810

.0È 3

7.8

7.1È

15.4

61È 9

0R

ecla

mat

ion

wit

hgy

psum

Surf

ace

8.7

0.38

3.1

31.6

7.3

12Su

bsur

face

8.9È

9.3

0.37

È 0.5

70.

2È0.

518

.7È 9

7.5

4.3È

14.7

10È 1

6

B.P

erpe

tual

lyir

riga

ted

cult

ivat

ed(n

orm

al)

soil

Surf

ace

8.6

0.82

5.2

È11

.29

Subs

urfa

ce8.

3È8.

60.

35È 0

.86

1.0È

2.8

È12

.8È 1

7.4

5È8

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E3

Ioni

cco

mpo

siti

onof

the

satu

rati

one

extr

act

afte

r20

year

s

Satu

rati

onex

trac

tan

alys

is(m

mol

cL

{1)

EC

eT

reat

men

tpH

s(d

Sm

{1)

Na

+C

a2+

CO

32{

HC

O3{

Cl{

SAR

A.P

revi

ousl

yun

recl

aim

edso

dic

soil

Fen

cing

Surf

ace

8.4

1.8

8.8

6.0

4.2

7.4

7.0

4Su

bsur

face

8.9È

10.3

2.9È

11.1

21.2

È 139

.76.

0È24

.02.

8È15

0.4

6.3È

39.2

7.0È

28.0

9È54

Occ

asio

nal

cult

ivat

ion

Surf

ace

9.1

0.8

5.9

8.0

0.0

6.8

4.0

3Su

bsur

face

9.5È

9.8

2.9È

4.6

22.6

È 42.

28.

0È18

.011

.2È 4

4.8

5.6È

19.6

8.0È

14.0

8È19

Rec

lam

atio

nw

ith

gyps

umSu

rfac

e8.

41.

53.

14.

01.

49.

51.

04

Subs

urfa

ce8.

2È8.

70.

9È1.

52.

1È7.

34.

0È12

.00.

0È5.

63.

5È6.

33.

0È4.

01È

3

B.P

erpe

tual

lyir

riga

ted

cult

ivat

ed(n

orm

al)

soil

Surf

ace

8.2

1.5

4.7

10.0

0.0

6.8

6.4

2Su

bsur

face

7.6È

8.2

0.9È

1.5

3.0È

5.1

4.0È

6.0

0.0

4.2È

7.0

4.0È

6.0

2

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

TA

BL

E4

Cha

nges

inso

ilch

arac

teri

stic

sdu

eto

di†

eren

tial

man

agem

ent

in20

year

s Soil

char

acte

rist

ics

Tre

atm

ent

Yea

rpH

sE

Ce

ESP

Cat

ions

*A

nion

s*

Surf

ace

hori

zon

Fen

cing

1972

9.0

102.

396

Na

+C

O32

{ ,H

CO

3{,C

l{19

928.

41.

812

Na

+,M

g2+

HC

O3{

,Cl{

Occ

asio

nal

1972

10.6

22.3

96N

a+

CO

32{ ,

HC

O3{

,Cl{

cult

ivat

ion

1992

9.1

0.8

52N

a+

,Ca2

+H

CO

3{,C

O32

{R

ecla

mat

ion

wit

h19

7210

.519

.895

Na

+H

CO

3{,C

l{gy

psum

1992

8.4

1.5

12M

g2+

,Ca2

+H

CO

3{,C

l{U

nder

perp

etua

l19

727.

90.

99

Na

+,C

a2+

HC

O3{

,CO

32{ ,

Cl{

irri

gate

dcu

ltiv

atio

n19

928.

21.

59

Mg2

+,C

a2+

HC

O3{

,Cl{

LSD

(0.0

5):

Tre

atm

ent

(T)

0.33

5.1

3.7

Yea

r(Y

)0.

233.

62.

6T

3Y

0.46

7.2

5.2

Subs

urfa

ceho

rizo

nF

enci

ng19

729.

5È10

.32.

9È11

.924

È 92

Na

+H

CO

3{,C

O32

{ ,SO

42{ ,

Cl{

1992

9.5È

9.8

0.9È

6.0

45È 9

3N

a+

CO

32{ ,

HC

O3{

,Cl{

,SO

42{

Occ

asio

nal

1972

9.6È

10.2

1.3È

6.3

69È 9

1N

a+

CO

32{ ,

HC

O3{

cult

ivat

ion

1992

9.5È

9.8

3.1È

4.6

61È 8

0N

a+

CO

32{ ,

HC

O3{

,Cl{

Rec

lam

atio

nw

ith

gyps

um19

729.

4È10

.50.

9È11

.025

È 96

Na

+C

O32

{ ,H

CO

3{19

928.

2È8.

70.

9È1.

210

È 18

Mg2

+,C

a2+

HC

O3{

,Cl{

,SO

42{

Und

erpe

rpet

ual

1972

8.1È

8.5

0.5È

1.0

11È 1

7N

a+

,Ca2

+H

CO

3{,C

l{ir

riga

ted

cult

ivat

ion

1992

7.6È

8.2

0.9È

1.5

5È8

Mg2

+,N

a+

,H

CO

3{,C

l{C

a2+

*R

elat

ive

dom

inan

ceof

resp

ecti

veio

n.

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Management-Induced Changes in Sodic Soils 95

cultivated and gypsum reclaimed treatments. Cation exchange capacity in the sub-surface layers of the soils from the fencing and occasional cultivation treatmentswere similar and varied from 7.1 to 15.4 kg { 1 . However, CEC in the perpetu-cmolcal irrigated cultivation treatment was higher than the gypsum-reclaimed treatment.Soil reclaimed with gypsum and that under perpetual irrigated cultivation hadlower ESP values. ESP of occasionally cultivated soil varied between 52 and 89. Forthe fencing treatment, the ESP was low at the surface but higher in the lower layers.The (saturation paste) and (saturation extract) increased with depth for thepHs ECefencing treatment and the occasionally cultivated soils (Table 3). Na+ and CO3

2 {were the dominant ions in fencing and occasionally cultivated treatments, whereasCa+ 2 and were dominant in the gypsum-reclaimed and perpetual irrigatedHCO3{cultivation treatments. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of the subsurface of thefencing treatment was much higher than that in the occasionally cultivated treat-ment. The presence of relatively higher pH in subsurface of gypsum-reclaimed soilindicates that even after 20 years of reclamation, the lower layers have still remainedsodic in nature.

During 20 years of the fencing treatment the soil has been supporting perennialgrasses, the biomass of which has helped to partially reclaim the surface of thecalcareous sodic soils. As a result from surface has disappeared in this treat-CaCO3

ment. Changes in pH, EC, ESP, and soluble salts (Table 4) indicate a shift in thedomain of the salts from the surface to the subsurface horizons of the soil proÐle.Similar changes in the chemical characteristics were also noticed in the occasionallycultivated treatment. However, magnitude of these changes was less in the absenceof vegetation. Reclamation with gypsum resulted in signiÐcant decrease in pHs ECe ,ESP, and changes in the soil solution composition in surface soil. However, sub-surface horizon still had higher and ESP and qualify for sodic soil. UnderpHsperpetual irrigated cultivation treatment some reduction in ESP of subsurfacehorizon is also noticeable.

In conclusion, reclamation of sodic soils with gypsum, biomass from perennialvegetation, or cultivated crops has led to a large-scale improvement in morphologi-cal, physical, and chemical characteristics of these soils. Therefore, in areas wheresystematic reclamation with gypsum is not feasible due to common property rightsand the meager availability of funds, simple fencing or occasional cultivation may bethe only alternatives for reclamation of these sodic soils.

References

Belyayeva, N. I. 1967. Rapid method for simultaneous determination of exchange capacityand content of exchangeable cations in Solonetzic soils. Soviet Soil Science 1409È1413.

Blake, G. R., and K. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density. In Methods of soil analysis, Part 1, 2nd ed.,ed. A. Klute, pp. 363È375. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Jackson, M. L. 1975. Soil chemical analysisÈadvanced courses, 2nd ed. Author. Madison,Wisconsin.

Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. In Methods of soil analysis, Part 1, 2nded., ed. A. Klute, pp. 635È660. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Klute, A., and C. Dirksen. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and di†usivity. In Methods of soilanalysis, Part 1, 2nd ed., ed. A. Klute, pp. 687È732. Soil Science Society of America,Madison, Wisconsin.

Murthy, R. S., L. R. Hirekerur, S. B. Deshpande, and B. V. Venkata Rao. 1982. Benchmarksoils of India. National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (ICAR), Nagpur,India.

Nelson, D. W., and L. E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter.In Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed., eds. A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R.Keeney, pp. 539È579. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Nelson, R. E. 1982. Carbonate and gypsum. In Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed., eds.A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney, pp. 181È198. American Society of Agron-omy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4

96 Raj-Kumar et al.

Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Soluble salts. In Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed., eds. A. L. Page,R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney, pp. 167È180. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,Wisconsin.

Soil Survey Division Sta†. 1993. Soil Survey Manual. U.S.D.A. Handbook 18. U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

9:46

15

Oct

ober

201

4