salinity management: correcting a saline soil

Salinity ManagementDealing with a Saline Soil

Keith M. Backman

M.S. UCD – PomologyCertified Crop Advisor

Certified Professional Horticulturist

Dellavalle Laboratory, Inc.

Fresno, Hanford, Davis, Paso Robles, CACell 559 647-5330

Report of Water Analysis

Lab No. 184418Sampler

Submitted Date 3/20/2013Submitted by

San Miguel Reported Date 4/4/2013Location/Project

21 Copy To Fax

Ag Suitability e-mail

Total Total Total Adj TotalEC Ca Mg Na SAR SAR Cl CO3+ HCO3 B NO3-N pH L.I.

dS/m meq/L meq/L meq/L meq/L meq/L mg/L mg/L unit Calc

RL- - - > 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 1.0 to 14.0 -2.0 to 2.0

SM- - - > 2510 B Calc Calc 2320 B 4500H B 2330 B

EPA- - - > 200.7 200.7 200.7 300.0 200.7 300.0

Analysis Date: 3/21/20133/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/29/2013 3/21/2013 3/21/2013 3/22/2013 3/21/2013 3/21/2013 3/29/2013

Analysis Time: 11:47 13:11 13:11 13:11 13:11 12:26 11:47 13:11 12:26 11:47 calculated from nitrate-N

lbs/AcFoot lbs/AcInch

001 Ag Well 2.25 1.99 1.69 14.0 10.3 20.8 12.0 6.7 3.18 1.0 8.0 0.6 2.73 0.23

Vineyard Total Carbonates & Langelier

Critical Levels Salts Calcium Magnesium Sodium SAR Adjusted Chloride Bicarbonates Boron Nitrate pH Index

Low for Vineyards <0.50 <4.00 - - - - - - - - <6.5 < -0.5

Normal .60-1.55.00-10.00 1.1-5.0 <4.0 0.1-4.0 0.1-4.0 0.1-1.5 0.1-2.5 < 0.40 0.1-5.0 6.8-7.9 -0.3 - 0.5

High for Vineyards > 2.20 - - > 7.0 > 9.0 > 9.0 > 3.5 > 3.5 > 0.60 > 7.0 > 8.4 > 0.9*

Nitrogenagricultural use

calculations

Sodium Abs. Ratio

Highs & Lows

How much salt does it take create a problem …..?

That depends on YOU!

Report of Water Analysis

Lab No. 184418Sampler


San Miguel Reported Date 4/4/2013Location/Project

21 Copy To Fax

Ag Suitability e-mail

Total Total Total Adj TotalEC Ca Mg Na SAR SAR Cl CO3+ HCO3 B NO3-N pH L.I.

dS/m meq/L meq/L meq/L meq/L meq/L mg/L mg/L unit Calc

RL- - - > 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 1.0 to 14.0 -2.0 to 2.0

SM- - - > 2510 B Calc Calc 2320 B 4500H B 2330 B

EPA- - - > 200.7 200.7 200.7 300.0 200.7 300.0

Analysis Date: 3/21/20133/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/22/2013 3/29/2013 3/21/2013 3/21/2013 3/22/2013 3/21/2013 3/21/2013 3/29/2013

Analysis Time: 11:47 13:11 13:11 13:11 13:11 12:26 11:47 13:11 12:26 11:47 calculated from nitrate-N

lbs/AcFoot lbs/AcInch

001 Ag Well 2.25 1.99 1.69 14.0 10.3 20.8 12.0 6.7 3.18 1.0 8.0 0.6 2.73 0.23

Vineyard Total Carbonates & Langelier

Critical Levels Salts Calcium Magnesium Sodium SAR Adjusted Chloride Bicarbonates Boron Nitrate pH Index

Low for Vineyards <0.50 <4.00 - - - - - - - - <6.5 < -0.5

Normal .60-1.55.00-10.00 1.1-5.0 <4.0 0.1-4.0 0.1-4.0 0.1-1.5 0.1-2.5 < 0.40 0.1-5.0 6.8-7.9 -0.3 - 0.5

High for Vineyards > 2.20 - - > 7.0 > 9.0 > 9.0 > 3.5 > 3.5 > 0.60 > 7.0 > 8.4 > 0.9*

Nitrogenagricultural use

calculations

Sodium Abs. Ratio

“Salts” That Move In The Soil

• Chloride• Boron• Nitrate• Calcium

Things That Don’t Want To Move In The Soil

• Sodium (Calcium needed to bust it loose)

Salt AccumulationThe Real Culprit !

• We need to know how to slow it, prevent it, fight it !!

Salts tend to stop where the water is

consumed.

Na

Na

Na

NaNa

NaNa NaNa

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

NaNa

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

Dripper

NaNa

Report of Soil Analysis 1910 W. M cKinley, Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93728

FAX (559) 268-8174 - (800) 228-9896 - (559) 233-6129

Lab No. 189974Sampled Date 6/14/2013


Templeton CA 93465 Reported Date 6/25/201318914 Location/Project Comparison Samples21 Copy To

Fax ID: Winegrapes E-mail

San Miguel

No. Description % units dS/m meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l % T/ac-6" +\- lbs/ac-6" mg/l Texture Moisture

SP pH EC Ca Mg Na Cl ESP GR Lime Lime B

RL---> 0.50 1.0 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 500 0.1

NAPT M ethods---> S1.00 S1.10 S1.20 S1.60 S1.60 S1.60 S1.40 Calc. S2.50 S1.50

Handbook 60--->Hndbk 60-22d

Hndbk 60-23a

1 Blk 6 (Poor) R12 V27 NE 1' 49 7.6 2.20 3.2 1.5 16.6 4.0 12.8 - 1.6 Clay Loam Wet2 Blk 6 (Poor) R12 V27 NE 2' 46 7.9 2.35 4.6 2.1 15.9 1.4 10.3 - 1.4 Clay Loam Wet3 Blk 6 (Poor) R12 V27 NE 3' 49 7.7 5.81 23.1 11.2 27.9 1.9 8.0 + 0.3 Clay Loam/Loam Wet/Moist4 Blk 6 (Poor) R12 V27 NE 4' 51 7.5 4.89 23.6 10.1 15.8 7.8 4.2 +++ <0.1 Loam Dry5 Blk 6 (Poor) R12 V27 NE 5' 48 7.7 2.77 14.9 6.0 7.3 8.8 2.0 +++ <0.1 Loam Dry

6 Blk 2 (Good) R44 V41 SE 1' 26 7.9 2.20 3.3 1.6 19.9 3.3 14.9 - 1.8 Sandy Loam Dry7 Blk 2 (Good) R44 V41 SE 2' 27 8.2 2.37 2.3 1.1 18.2 2.8 16.3 - 1.4 Sandy Loam/ Loam Dry8 Blk 2 (Good) R44 V41 SE 3' 43 7.6 1.28 2.4 1.6 7.8 1.8 6.4 - 0.6 Loam/Clay Loam Wet9 Blk 2 (Good) R44 V41 SE 4' 41 7.5 1.70 6.1 5.3 7.2 2.0 3.1 - <0.1 Loam Moist10 Blk 2 (Good) R44 V41 SE 5' 37 7.2 1.90 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.0 2.2 - <0.1 Loam Dry

Wine Grapes - Soil "Texture" "Acidity" Total Salts Calcium Magnesium Sodium Chloride "Alkali" Gyp Req Lime Pres Lime Req. Boron*

Low Sand < 20 <6.3 <0.5 <4* - - - - - < 0.2Normal Loam:25-45 6.7-7.8 0.7-2.0 5-25 <Ca <5.0 <5 0.1-4.0 ++ .3-.6High Clay>55 8.2+ 2.5** 35+ - 8+ 10+ 6+ ++++ 0.9+

(mg/kg is equivalent to ppm) Calcium should be tw ice the sodium level

* = a low level does not necessarily indicate a deficiency, check w ith tissue analysis.

** = EC up to 4.0 not a problem if calcium is much greater than sodium.

High & Low levels are based on consultant interpretation of the situation, including plant specie, rootstock, age, irrigation system, etc.

SP levels w ith a signif icant textural interface (>6) are indicated w ith a separator line.

Black = Normal

Red = High Green = Sl Low

Orange = Sl. High Blue = Low

RockyRocky

ObservationsNotes

texture change

Rocky

Consider The Soil

• Consider the Root Zone

What Lies Beneath?

To Aggravate Things….Soil Layers

• Hard Pan• Plow Pan• Sand Layers• Clay Layers• Any Layers!• Water Directional Flows

Notice A Field Pattern?

Sodium & Salinity

Salt SpecificsWhat is Sodic Soil?

Ca+Mg

Na

Sodium Dominant

Sodic Soil (aka “Alkali”)

Sodium Dominant SoilPoor aeration, poor drainage (deflocculated)

NaNa

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

NaNa

Na

Na

ReviewLow Salt Nice Salt Sodium Salt(deflocculated) (flocculated) (deflocculated)

H

K

H

HH

H

H

H

H

NaNa

Na

Na

Na

Na

Na

NaNa

Na

Na

Ca

Ca

Ca

Ca

Ca

Ca

CaCa

Ca

Ca

Ca

Report of Soil Analysis 1910 W. McKinley, Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93728

FAX (559) 268- 8174 - (800) 228- 9896 - (559) 233- 6129



Bakersfield CA 93308 Reported Date 9/22/201514254 Location/Project 21 Copy To

Fax ID: Pistachio Fall Soils E-mail

No. Description % units dS/m meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l % T/ac-6" +\- lbs/ac- 6" mg/l mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

SP pH EC Ca Mg Na Cl ESP GR Lime Lime B NO3-N PO4-P K Acid K Zn

RL- - - > 0.50 1.0 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 500 0.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 40.0 0.1

NAPT Methods- - - > S1.00 S1.10 S1.20 S1.60 S1.60 S1.60 S1.40 Calc. S2.50 S1.50 S3.10 S4.10 S5.10 S6.10

Handbook 60- - - >Hndbk

60- 22dHndbk

60- 23aSSSA,p561 mod

1 Blk 1 CS R12 T9 SW 1' 42 7.2 7.40 23.4 13.0 38.2 39.0 10.7 <0.1 + 0.9 8 2 225 0.6

2 Blk 1 CS R12 T9 SW 2' 43 7.6 4.06 9.1 3.1 25.3 17.8 12.2 1.4 +++ 0.6 5 4 168 0.2

3 Blk 1 CS R12 T9 SW 3' 42 7.6 4.93 14.1 4.1 30.3 16.4 11.9 1.6 ++++ 0.8 5 5 150 0.3

4 Blk 1 CS R12 T9 SW 4' 45 7.6 6.99 32.8 8.8 29.4 28.0 7.6 ++++ 0.3 41 6 168 0.3

5 Blk 1 CS R12 T9 SW 5' 47 7.5 11.80 70.6 16.9 27.3 96.6 4.6 ++++ 0.2 72 4 202 0.3

6 Blk 1N NW R30 T8 NW 1' 45 7.2 0.96 2.7 2.4 4.8 3.2 3.0 - 0.2 <1 17 244 3.8

7 Blk 1N NW R30 T8 NW 2' 43 7.6 4.63 35.5 10.2 9.1 3.8 1.5 ++++ 0.2 <1 10 175 1.48 Blk 1N NW R30 T8 NW 3' 46 7.7 4.46 35.2 5.6 9.1 5.9 1.7 ++++ 0.2 <1 12 165 0.9

9 Blk 1N NW R30 T8 NW 4' 46 7.7 4.42 36.3 3.8 9.0 6.3 1.7 +++ 0.4 <1 2 173 0.6

10 Blk 1N NW R30 T8 NW 5' 45 7.7 4.18 34.0 3.2 9.1 4.2 1.8 ++ 0.4 <1 2 172 1.0

11 Blk 2 NW R30 T8 NW 1' 53 7.6 2.38 6.9 7.5 11.3 12.0 4.8 + 0.2 <1 28 260 2.112 Blk 2 NW R30 T8 NW 2' 66 7.9 4.42 12.1 7.2 22.9 23.9 8.8 +++ 0.5 <1 6 204 0.5

13 Blk 2 NW R30 T8 NW 3' 58 7.8 5.84 15.9 5.4 36.9 14.9 13.3 4.2 ++++ 1.0 <1 6 208 0.4

14 Blk 2 NW R30 T8 NW 4' 52 7.7 8.28 26.9 7.6 48.4 33.4 13.8 2.2 ++++ 0.7 11 7 196 0.5

15 Blk 2 NW R30 T8 NW 5' 53 7.5 6.51 29.4 7.0 27.6 37.1 7.6 ++++ 0.7 33 3 195 0.2

16 Blk 2B CN R5 T15 NW 1' 29 6.2 4.45 8.2 9.7 24.7 25.4 9.8 - 0.8 <1 53 196 5.0

17 Blk 2B CN R5 T15 NW 2' 30 7.1 5.80 13.6 15.3 27.8 36.0 8.7 + 0.1 <1 22 143 1.318 Blk 2B CN R5 T15 NW 3' 34 7.3 6.37 24.9 12.1 28.5 34.9 7.8 ++++ 0.4 12 8 91 0.4

19 Blk 2B CN R5 T15 NW 4' 29 7.7 7.17 24.2 7.5 38.5 31.7 11.5 1.8 ++++ 0.5 23 4 80 0.4

20 Blk 2B CN R5 T15 NW 5' 24 8.1 5.86 21.1 5.9 33.9 16.9 11.0 <0.1 ++++ 0.6 9 <2 64 0.1

Pistachio Soil "Texture" "Acidity " Total Salts Calcium Magnesium Sodium Chloride "Alkali" Gy p Req Lime Pres Lime Req. Boron* Nitrate-N* Phosphate-P* Potassium*Potassium* Zinc

Low Sand<20 < 6.5 < 0.5 <4 - - - - < .3 < 5 < 4? <80? <0.5Normal 25- 45 6.7- 8.2 0.6- 4.2 5-20 Mg<Ca < 8.0 < 10 <10 ++ .4-1.6 6-25 6-25 100-250 1.2-3.0High Clay>55 8.4+ 6.0+ 30+ > Ca 16+ 15+ 15+ ++++ 2.2+ 35+ > 50 350+ 5.0+

(mg/kg is equivalent to ppm) Sodium should be significantly lower than calc ium. **** = a low level for this nutrient does not necessarily indicate a deficiency, check with tissue analysis.


*** = High & Low levels are based on consultant interpretation of the situation, including tree age, rootstock, age, irrigation system, etc.

SP levels with a significant textural interface (>6) are indicated with a separator line.

Black = Normal


Purple = Sl. High Blue = Low

Report of Soil Analysis 1910 W. McKinley, Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93728

FAX (559) 268- 8174 - (800) 228- 9896 - (559) 233- 6129



Huron CA 93234-0215 Reported Date 9/6/201613685 Location/Project 21 Copy To

Fax ID: Almond E-mail

September Soil Cores

No. Description % units dS/m meq/l meq/l meq/l meq/l % T/ac-6" +\- lbs/ac- 6" mg/l mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

SP pH EC Ca Mg Na Cl ESP GR Lime Lime B NO3-N PO4-P K Acid K Zn

RL- - - > 0.50 1.0 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 500 0.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 40.0 0.1

NAPT Methods- - - > S1.00 S1.10 S1.20 S1.60 S1.60 S1.60 S1.40 Calc. S2.50 S1.50 S3.10 S4.10 S5.10 S6.10

Handbook 60- - - >Hndbk

60- 22dHndbk

60- 23aSSSA,p561 mod

1 13-1 NW 2016 R45 T12 NW 0-1' 45 7.7 11.90 31.0 38.8 61.1 12.3 <0.1 - 2.9 98 22 628 4.6

2 13-1 NW 2016 R45 T12 NW 1-2' 45 7.8 3.99 16.2 14.5 16.3 4.7 - 1.3 24 19 446 2.53 13-1 NW 2016 R45 T12 NW 2-3' 44 7.8 3.52 11.4 10.4 16.8 5.9 + 1.3 13 6 276 2.14 13-1 NW 2016 R45 T12 NW 3-4' 51 8.0 2.62 6.8 7.2 15.1 6.7 + 1.2 10 4 226 2.65 13-1 NW 2016 R45 T12 NW 4-5' 43 8.0 4.00 13.1 13.2 20.6 6.7 + 1.2 13 4 177 0.7

6 15 W-4 SE R25 T9 SE 0-1' 47 7.2 1.62 2.6 2.2 11.6 8.9 - 0.6 1 3 230 3.97 15 W-4 SE R25 T9 SE 1-2' 37 7.8 5.68 9.1 7.4 40.1 16.2 4.2 + 1.2 2 <2 204 1.88 15 W-4 SE R25 T9 SE 2-3' 50 7.8 6.60 14.9 9.8 57.4 18.6 2.7 ++ 1.7 9 <2 186 1.29 15 W-4 SE R25 T9 SE 3-4' 58 7.9 7.05 14.1 15.4 52.1 15.8 3.2 + 1.9 8 3 220 1.510 15 W-4 SE R25 T9 SE 4-5' 53 7.8 9.97 21.3 22.9 48.5 12.2 0.8 + 1.7 6 4 243 0.9

Almond Soil "Texture" "Acidity" Total Salts Calcium M agnesium Sodium Chloride "Alkali" Gy p Req Lime Pres Lime Req. Boron* Nitrate-N* Phosphate-P* Potassium*Potassium* Zinc

Low Sand<20 <6.3 <0.5 <4* - - - <0.2 < 5 <4 <80 <0.5Normal Lo am:25-45 6.7- 8.0 0.7- 2.0 5-10 Mg<Ca <8.0 < 4 0.1-5.0 ++ .3-0.8 8-25 7-25 100-250 1.0-4.0High Clay>55 8.4 + 2.5+ 20+ 20+ 16+ 8+ 8.0 + ++++ 1.2 + 35+ 50+ 350+ 6.0+

(mg/kg is equivalent to ppm) Sodium should be significantly lower than calc ium. **** = a low level for this nutrient does not necessarily indicate a deficiency, check with tissue analysis.


High & Low levels are based on consultant interpretation of the situation, including tree age, rootstock, age, irrigation system, etc.

SP levels with a significant textural interface (>6) are indicated with a separator line.

Black = Normal


Purple = Sl. High Blue = Low

What is Leaching?

• Flush • Wash Away• Push Out• Push Sideways

Surface

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'

Keith Backman CCA, CPH

Dellavalle Lab

Deficit Irrigation ExampleSeptember 1

After applying about less water thanthan was really needed, for the whole season. Depth to

Moist Soil

Surface drip zone drip zone

Jul 1

1'

June 1

2' May 1

Apr 1

3'

Mar 1

4'

Feb 1

5'

Keith Backman CCA, CPH = moistDellavalle Lab =was wet, now dry

= dry all year

Salt Accumulates Where The Water Stops

Surface

Salt Sslt * Salt Salt SaltSalt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt

Salt Salt Salt * Salt Salt Salt1' Salt

Salt SaltSalt * Salt

*2' Salt *

salt

3'

4'

5'

Keith Backman CCA, CPH = moistDellavalle Lab =was wet, now dry

= dry all year

Soil

Surface micro

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'


Dellavalle Lab

Hard Pan Water Penetration Problem

drive row drive rowrippershank

locationSurface

1'

2'

3'

4'

5'


Dellavalle Lab

Salts in Soil ProfileAfter Leaching

Surface

Salt

1'

Salt

Salt

2'

3'

Salt

4' Salt Salt

Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt



5' Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt

Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt

Keith Backman CCA, CPH Salt Salt Salt Salt Salt = moistDellavalle Lab =slightly moist

= dry all year

December Leaching

• No Recent Nitrogen Fertilizer

December Leaching

• November is too early• February is too late• (for most crops)

• Best alternative for micro-sprinklers, drippers, sub-surface drip, furrow, flood

Tools

• Soil Probe• Calculator• Computer Satellite Maps• Tensiometer• Neutron Probe• Gypsum Block• Pressure Bomb• Real Time Systems _ (capacitance, Gypsum Block)

Field Pattern?

A Must Have!

Salinity ManagementDealing with a Saline Soil

Keith M. Backman

M.S. UCD – PomologyCertified Crop Advisor

Certified Professional Horticulturist

Dellavalle Laboratory, Inc.

Fresno, Hanford, Davis, Paso Robles, CACell 559 647-5330

salinity management: correcting a saline soil

Documents