Remediation of salt-affected soil using amendments for improving soil health and productivity

Doctoral seminar On
Speaker:-
Suraj Mali
Ph.D ( 3rd semester)
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural
University, Pusa, Samastipur
Remediation of salt-affected soil using
amendments for improving soil health and
productivity

Introduction
 Present-era of climate change results in expansion of area under
salt affected due to fluctuation in seasonal rainfall and temperature.
 In order to control salt affected soil, several efforts had been made
in several countries i.e. Phytoremediation, bioremediation and
soil amendments came into picturization as the remediation technique
for salt-affected soil.
 Soil amendments came into picturization as the most cheap and
rapidly remediation technique for salt-affected soil.

 Soil amendment includes all inorganic and organic substances
mixed into the soil for achieving a better soil constitution regarding
plant productivity.
 Soil amendments are elements added to the soil, such as natural
fertilizer, peat moss, manure, or chemical fertilizer, to improve its
capacity to support plant life.
 The type of amendments added to soil depends on the current soil
composition, the climate, and the type of plant.
 Soil amendments are also called soil conditioners.
Conti…

Salt-affected
soil
Integrated management practices for the reclamation of
salt-affected soils
Hydraulic
Flushing
Leaching
Improving irrigation / drainage
Physical / mechanical
Scraping
Land leveling
Subsoiling
Chemical
 Amendment
Soil conditioning
Mineral fertilizer
Biological
Organic matter
application
Green manuring
Tree plantation
Blue green algae
Saline agriculture

Importance of Amendments
 Improves soil structure and aeration.
 Increase water-holding capacity.
 Increase availability of water to plants.
 Reduce compaction and hardpan conditions.
 Improves tile drainage effectiveness.
 Release of “locked” nutrients.
 Better root development.
 Higher yields and quality.
 Neutralisation of soil reaction.
 Reduction in nutrient loss through leaching by formation of chelates.

Types of Amendments
There are two broad categories of soil amendments:
1. Organic and
2. Inorganic
An organic amendment is any material of plant or animal origin
that can be added to the soil to improve its physical, chemical and
biological properties.
 Organic amendments include biochar, biocompost, pressmud,
sphagnum peat, woodchips biochar, grass clippings, straw compost,
manure and biosolids etc.
 Inorganic amendments, on the other hand, are either mined or man-
made.
 Inorganic amendments include gypsum, calcium chloride, pyrites,
vermiculite and perlite etc.

CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANICAMENDMENTS
1. Bulky organic manure (NPK %)
FYM
0.52 : 0.33 : 0.38
VERMICOMPOST
0.55 : 0.19 : 1.74
SEWAGE SLUDGE
3.0 : 2.0 : 1 .0
POULTRYMANURE
1.0 : 1.4 : 0.8
CATTLE MANURE
0.5 : 0.3 : 0.9
Anon et al., 1997 Gaur et al., 1990
1. Bulky organic manure (NPK %)

2. Concentrated organic manures (NPK %)
Castor cake
4.3 : 1.8 : 1.3
Neem cake
5.2 : 1.0 : 1.4
Linseed cake
4.9 : 1.4 :1.3
Bone meal
3-4 : 20-25 : 0
Fish meal
4-10 : 3-9 : 0.3-1.5
Buffalo urine
1.8 :0.3 :0.2
Anon et al., 1997

Other Organic Amendments
Biochar
Biocompost
Pressmud

Physical and chemical characteristics of different organic amendment
Characteristics
Woodchip
Biochar
Biosolids
compost
Green waste
compost
pH 8.55 7.38 6.36
EC (dSm-1) 0.56 12.8 2.75
Organic Matter % - 61.4 56
Oranic Carbon % 83.9 32 33.2
Total C% 63 24.4 23
Total N% 0.74 3.8 0.99
C:N ratio 85.1 6.42 23.2
Stability indicator (mg CO2-
C OM g-1 day-1)
- 2.3 0.66
Total Elements (%)
K 0.53 0.55 0.73
Ca 1.68 2.84 1.47
Mg 0.41 0.48 0.37
Na 0.46 0.16 0.09
Vijayasatya and David, 2015

Texture-Clay loam (Sand - 42 %, Silt - 21 %, Clay - 37 %) , pH-8.19,
ECe-23.1 (dS m−1), ESP (%)-24.3, SAR-31.3 (mmol l-1)1/2
Fig. 1: Soil pH, ECe, and ESP(mean ± s.e.) for different treatments before and after leaching.
Same letters within a column series indicate no significant differences between treatments (P <
0.05, Tukey’s test).
USC = Unsterilized control soil ,
UWBC = Unsterilized soil + unsterilized Woodchip Biochar,
UBSC = Unsterilized soil + unsterilized Biosolids compost,
UGWC = Unsterilized soil + unsterilized Greenwaste compost,
SC = Pre-sterilized control soil,
SWBC = Pre-sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized Woodchip Biochar ,
SBSC = Pre-sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized Biosolids compost,
SGWC = Pre-sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized Greenwaste compost
Vijayasatya and David, 2015, United StatesGeoderma,259-260 : 45-55

Pressmud and Biocompost
formation in sugarcane factory
+
Spentwash
Biocompost

Characteristics Pressmud Biocompost
pH 6.0-7.0 7-8
EC (dSm-1) 3.0-3.3 1-1.4
Organic Carbon % 15.0-36.0 15.98
Total Nitrogen% 1.0-1.5 1.27
C:N ratio 16-36 -
Phosphorus 1.4-4.0 1.61
Potassium 0.5-2.0 1.42
Calcium 3.2-12.0 4.3-5
Magnesium 1.0-2.0 -
Sulphur 0.1-0.5 0.1-0.2
Sodium - 0.5-0.7
Iron 0.08-0.3 -
Manganese 0.01-0.3 -
Zinc 0.14-0.04 -
Copper 0.003-0.0245 -
Ash content - 50.00
Sarangi et al., 2005 ; Satisha et al., 2005, 2007

Treatment
Filled grain per panicle
Unfilled grain per
panicle
100 seed weight (g)
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Narend
ra usar
3
NDR
359
Naren
dra
usar 3
NDR
359
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Naren
dra
usar 3
NDR
359
No
Biocompost
109.48 144.07 131.93 151.67 34.80 21.70 28.40 19.87 2.39 2.42 2.41 2.45
Biocompost
2 t ha-1 114.38 143.64 137.80 170.34 27.93 15.20 26.60 12.33 2.45 2.44 2.67 2.48
Biocompost
4 t ha-1 131.03 162.67 138.73 186.66 26.07 14.00 20.50 10.40 2.56 2.51 2.63 2.60
Biocompost
6 t ha-1 144.03 172.72 146.33 194.32 25.71 12.60 17.80 10.10 2.75 2.61 2.78 2.66
SEm± 1.96 5.89 4.16 2.76 0.77 1.51 0.91 1.11 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
CD at 5% 5.93 NS 12.64 8.38 2.37 4.24 2.83 3.34 NS 0.09 NS 0.13
American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5 : 7-13 Khan et al., 2014, Uttar Pradesh
Texture - silty clay (sand - 24% , silt - 55%, clay - 21%), pH - 9.3, EC - 2.8 (dS m-1)
Table 1: Yield components of the two rice varieties in response to different rates of
biocompost application in sodic soil.

Treatment
Available N (kg ha-1) Available P2O5 (kg ha-1) Available K2O (kg ha-1)
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
No
Biocompost
211.5 ± 1.37 212.2 ± 1.32 24.0 ± 0.34 25.2 ± 0.32 234.8 ± 1.54 235.9 ± 1.77
Biocompost
2 t ha-1 235.7 ± 0.98 238.0 ± 1.12 29.4 ± 0.56 32.7 ± 0.39 245.7 ± 1.07 247.0 ± 1.54
Biocompost
4 t ha-1 243.3 ± 1.22 245.0 ± 0.99 36.2 ± 0.43 37.7 ± 0.23 256.5 ± 1.76 259.0 ± 1.43
Biocompost
6 t ha-1 252.3 ± 1.01 260.0 ± 1.03 44.6 ± 0.71 47.2 ± 0.43 264.5 ± 1.75 265.5 ± 1.38
Table 2: Effect of different dose of biocompost on plant available N, P and K in the
top soil (15 cm) at the end of the season.
All figures are mean values ± standard deviation.
American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5: 7-13 Khan et al., 2014, Uttar Pradesh
Texture - silty clay (sand - 24% , silt - 55%, clay - 21%), pH - 9.3, EC - 2.8 (dS m-1)

CLASSIFICATION OF INORGANICAMENDMENTS
 Inorganic amendments refer to items that are either mined or
manufactured such as gypsum, calcuim chloride, sulphur, pyrites,
iron sulfate, lime sulphur, molasses,vermiculite, and perlite etc.
 Inorganic amendments are used to supplement the organic matter
that is already in the soil.
These are classified as :
1. Synthetic Binding Agents
2. Mineral Amendments

Synthetic Binding Agents
 These amendments, when applied to soil in lower rate they bind
the soil particles leading to formation of stable aggregates.
 Due to binding ability, such agents helps in reducing the leaching
loss of nutrients.
 They also assist in maintaining proper pore geometry, there by
provide good aeration status which is conducive for better crop
growth.
 Synthetic binding agents includes Natural polysaccharides, Anionic
/Cationic polymers, Poly acryl amides, Polymeric aluminum ferric
sulfate (PAFS), Polymeric aluminum sulfate (PAS), Polymeric ferric
sulfate (PFS), and Polymeric aluminum ferric chloride (PAFC) etc.

Fig. 2: Volume variation of leachate from soils treated with gypsum and polymeric
aluminum ferric sulfate (PAFS) in lab soil column leaching experiment.
Soil & Tillage Research, 49 : 12-20 Luo et al., 2015
pH -10.83, ECe - 17.48 (dS m-1), ESP (%) - 50.26

Fig.3: Effects of polymeric aluminum ferric sulfate (PAFS) on soil (a) pH, (b) ECe
(dS m-1) and (c) ESP (%) in field experiment.
b
pH -10.83, ECe - 17.48 (dS m-1), ESP (%)- 50.26
CK0 = Control, not reclaimed and no
cultivation with rice
CK1 = Control, cultivated with rice for one
year without PAFS treatment,
CK2 = Control, cultivated with rice for two
years without PAFS treatment
T1 = Cultivated with rice for one year after
PAFS treatment
c

Table 3: Effects of polymeric aluminum ferric sulfate (PAFS) on rice yield.
Parameter CK1 CK2 T1
No. of panicle m-2 159.62 206.89 302.68
No. of grains per panicle 43.85 45.00 66.97
Filled grains (%) 56.57 75.80 93.72
1000-kernel weight (g) 20.96 22.66 24.53
Yield (t ha-1) 0.83 1.55 4.66
CK1 = Cultivated with rice for one year without PAFS treatment, CK2 = Cultivated with rice for
two years without PAFS treatment, T1 = Cultivated with rice for one year after PAFS treatment
pH -10.83, ECe - 17.48 (dS m-1), ESP (%) - 50.26

Mineral Amendments
These amendments are natural occurring minerals which are mined.
Mineral amendments include Gypsum, pyrite, Vermiculite, perlite,
lime sulphur etc.
Gypsum
 Gypsum occurs in nature as soft crystalline rock
and varies in purity.
 Chemical composition is CaSO4
. 2H2O.
 Gypsum has been shown to displace exch. Na+ from the cation
exchange sites of soils high in sodium.
 Gypsum can be used to reclaim saline areas or slick spots, soften
alkali hard pans, supply calcium on low exchange capacity soils,
and improve infiltration for some puddled soils.

The amount of gypsum to apply depends on the purity of the gypsum
and the quantity of sodium present in the soil.
 Gypsum helps in efficient use of water for the
crops. In periods of drought, this is exceedingly
important.
 Actual rates should be based on a salt-alkali soil
test proposed by Schoonover (1952).
CaSO4 + Na2CO3 CaCO3 + Na2SO4 (Leachable)
2Na- Clay micelle + CaSO4 Ca- Clay micelle + Na2SO4
(Leachable)

Table 4: The effect of various amendments and their combination on soils after
raising the greengram crop for pod formation stage (45th day) followed by post-
harvest stage (80th day) of field experiment.
Treatments
Pod formation stage Post harvest stage
pH
EC
(dS m-1)
pH
EC
(dS m-1)
ESP
(%)
Grain
yield
(kg ha-1)
T1 -Control 9.14 0.28 9.12 0.27 28.05 170
T2 - 50 % GR (alone) 8.64 0.47 8.48 0.47 17.97 341
T3 - FYM (alone) 8.78 0.30 8.75 0.30 21.22 318
T4 - 50 % GR + FYM 8.40 0.71 8.27 0.69 15.49 395
T5 - 50 % GR incubated FYM 8.21 1.01 7.92 0.96 14.31 421
T6 - PM (alone) 8.56 0.35 8.41 0.34 16.49 356
T7 - 50 % GR + PM 8.39 0.72 8.10 0.72 14.45 406
T8 - 50 % GR incubated PM 8.18 1.03 7.86 0.99 13.42 457
SED 0.14 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.44 8.85
CD (P = 0.05) 0.30 0.03 0.33 0.04 0.93 18.0
International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(1): 304-308 Sundhari et al., 2018, Tamil Nadu
T1 - Control, T2 -50% GR (gypsum requirement) alone @ 5.2 t ha-1, T3 - FYM @ 12.5 t ha-1 alone, T4 - 50% GR + FYM, T5 - 50%
GR incubated FYM, T6 - pressmud (PM) @ 10 t ha-1 alone, T7 - 50% GR + PM and T8 - 50% GR incubated PM
pH - 9.20, EC (dS m-1) - 0.29, ESP (%) -29.00

Table 5: Effect of gypsum levels and FYM on the yield of rice and wheat in an
alluvial alkali soil.
Treatments
Grain yield, t ha- 1
After three
years1st year 2nd year 3rd year
Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat pH ESP
Control 2.98 0.20 3.20 1.00 3.25 1.20 9.5 55
Gypsum @ 25 % GR 5.10 1.67 5.23 2.30 5.30 2.30 9.2 48
Gypsum @ 50 % GR 5.44 1.99 5.46 2.30 5.30 2.40 9.1 42
FYM @ 20 t ha-1
4.05 1.42 5.20 2.00 5.30 2.20 9.3 56
Gypsum @ 25 % GR
+FYM @ 20 t ha-1 5.78 2.14 5.76 2.80 5.80 2.80 9.1 38
Gypsum @ 50 % GR
+FYM @ 20 t ha-1 6.13 2.36 6.01 2.80 5.90 2.90 9.0 35
LSD at P=005 0.33 0.35 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.34 - -
Initial pH = 10.4, ESP = 89. Rice c.v. Jaya, Wheat c.v. HD 2009.
Agricultural Reviews, 23(2) : 110-126 R. Chhabra, 2002, Karnal

Table 6: Mean of the chemical composition of wheat leaves as affected by different
treatments.
Treatment
N P K Ca Na S Fe Zn Cu
g kg-1 mg kg-1
SW 23.4 1.02 12.50 2.14 11.40 0.085 53.4 25.6 20.1
WAG 26.2 1.13 13.26 2.71 10.32 1.9 54.2 26.4 19.5
F50 33.7 1.22 16.55 5.56 4.60 3.6 58.7 29.8 18.4
F75 34.8 1.52 16.91 6.66 4.52 4.7 61.6 32.7 18.6
F100 36.7 1.85 17.98 8.41 3.10 5.6 68.5 35.8 20.8
C50 32.3 1.32 15.11 5.24 4.33 3.2 57.3 28.3 16.9
C75 34.3 1.51 16.41 6.83 4.12 4.2 67.3 32.4 17.7
C100 36.1 1.79 17.18 8.31 3.02 5.5 68.3 34.1 19.7
LSD (5%) 2.91 0.23 2.77 1.29 1.69 1.15 4.62 2.62 8.7
SW, sodic water; WAG, dissolved gypsum in irrigation water; F, fine-grade gypsum; C, coarse-
grade gypsum; 50%, 75% and 100% of gypsum requirement
Geoderma, 193-194 : 246-255 Rasouli et al., 2013, Iran
pH - 9.11, ECe - 3.42 (dSm-1), SAR -24 (meq L-1)1/2, CEC - 17 (cmolc kg-1), B.D.- 1.5 (Mg m-3)

Pyrite
 Pyrite is a brass-yellow mineral with a bright metallic
luster due to which it is also called as “Fool’s Gold”.
 Chemical composition of pyrite is FeS2.
 When pyrite is applied into soil, it undergoes the following
changes.
The first step is biological oxidation of pyrite by autotrophic
bacteria like Thiobacillus into an acid and the reaction is as follows;
2FeS2 + 2H2O + 7O2 2FeSO4 + 2H2SO4
In second step, the acid produced by oxidation reacts
with soil lime to yield soluble calcium.
CaCO3 + H2SO4 CaSO4 + H2O + CO2
2 Na-Clay + CaSO4 Ca-Clay + Na2SO4
(Leachable)
 The efficiency of Pyrite increases when it is applied on the basis of
its water soluble sulphur content.

Table 7: Effect of different amendments on grain and straw yield of rice crop.
Treatment
Grain yield Straw yield
(g /pot)
Control 21.50 37.35
Py 50 39.39 56.40
Py 75 44.31 59.25
Py 100 48.75 63.45
BGS 39.85 56.70
FYM 35.85 52.70
SPM 45.65 60.39
Py50 +BGS 50.30 61.30
Py 75+BGS 54.80 63.40
Py 50+FYM 40.50 58.15
Py 75+FYM 46.50 62.10
Py 50+SPM 52.30 67.15
Py 75+SPM 55.59 70.39
mean 44.13 59.13
SEm 0.851 1.10
CD at 5% 2.475 3.46
Manoj kumar, 1998M.Sc. Thesis, RAU, Pusa
Texture-Silt loam
Clay -15%,
Silt - 27%,
Sand -58%
pH- 10.07,
EC -1.92 (dSm-1),
ESP -51.21 %,
SAR - 71.69,
Py.- Pyrites,
BGS - Biogas
slurry
FYM - Farmyard
Manure
SPM - Sulphitation
Pressmud

Table 8: Effect of amendments and their combination on average soil pH, EC, ESP and
Organic carbon (0-15 cm) in reclaimed sodic calcareous soil of Pusa.
Treatment pH EC (dSm-1) ESP (%)
Organic
carbon (%)
T1 - control 9.9 1.10 65.9 0.143
T2 - (Py 5 t ha-1) 9.4 0.63 47.0 0.158
T3 - (SPM 10 t ha-1) 9.3 0.71 48.9 0.308
T4 - (FA 10 t ha-1) 9.4 0.60 47.3 0.232
T5 - (Py 10 t ha-1) 9.3 0.72 43.5 0.228
T6 - (SPM 20 t ha-1) 9.3 0.63 46.7 0.350
T7 - (FA 20 t ha-1) 9.3 0.52 44.7 0.264
T8 - (Py 5 t ha-1+SPM 10 t ha-1) 9.2 0.76 41.2 0.312
T9 - (Py 5 t ha-1+ FA 10 t ha-1) 9.3 0.67 42.5 0.245
T10 - (SPM 10 t ha-1+FA 10 t ha-1) 9.1 0.90 34.1 0.315
CD at 5% 0.3 0.12 3.3 0.052
Py - Pyrite, SPM - Sulphitation Pressmud, FA - Flyash
Texture-Silt loam ( Clay -15%, Silt - 27%, Sand -58%), pH-10.07, EC-1.15 (dS m-1), ESP-67%,
M.Sc. Thesis, RAU, Pusa Dheeraj kumar Sudhansu, 2002

Vermiculite
 Vermiculite is a soft, spongy material made from super heating mica.
 Clay soil causes poor drainage and prevents proper
growth of roots. Adding vermiculite to heavy clay
soil can increase its drainage and aeration without
greatly altering its pH.
 Vermiculites are usually used on small scale in
potting soils and small plant beds to improve the
water retention and aeration in soil.
 Using vermiculite as growing medium will also enable
the plant to more easily absorb the ammonium,
potassium, calcium and magnesium necessary for
vigorous growth.
 Addition of vermiculite to soil in conjunction with peat
or compost will accelerate the growth and promote
anchorage for tender young root systems .

Perlite
 Perlite is a hard, highly porous material made by
super-heating volcanic glass. Heating unlocks its
potential as a soil amendment, since it expands
considerably.
 Perlite improves aeration and drainage. When
horticultural perlite is added to heavy clay soils,
surface puddles and surface crusting may be
eliminated.
 It’s low density makes it perfect for trapping air in
soil. Perlite keeps soil light, provides plant roots
with air, and promotes drainage.
 Perlite’s larger surface area makes it ideal for
indoor plants that require high humidity.

Factor Considering During Selection of Amendments
 Longevity of the Amendment
 Soil Texture
 Salt Status
 Plant Sensitivity to Salts
 Salt Content and pH of the Amendment
 Cost of amendments
 Environmental effect

Conclusion
 Increment in filled grains per panicle and 100 seed
weight of rice plant was found with increase in application
of bio compost in a salt affected soil.
 Treatment receiving cultivation of rice after PAFS
treatment resulted in more yield as compared to PAFS
untreated plots.
 Application of 100% GR through fine-grade gypsum
resulted in increased N, P, K, Ca, S, Fe, Zn and Cu content
in leaves of wheat was found under this treatment.

Table 8: Soil exch. Na+, Ca+2 and Mg+2 concentration (cmol kg-1) before and after leaching for
different treatments (mean)
Treatment
Na+ Ca+2 Mg+2
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
Control 6.73 2.46 78.72 75.61 4.80 3.69
Gypsum 6.89 1.68 80.69 84.94 4.93 3.92
BC 6.54 0.53 78.23 83.23 4.57 2.79
BSC 6.51 0.78 77.91 90.67 4.21 3.76
GWC 6.80 0.92 79.92 83.86 4.59 3.60
BCG 6.74 0.47 77.69 91.67 4.10 3.05
BSCG 6.61 0.37 78.59 92.16 4.34 2.43
GWCG 6.91 0.46 75.69 85.59 4.88 3.10

Table 8: Soil exch. Na+, Ca+2 and Mg+2 concentration (cmol kg-1) before
and after leaching for different treatments (mean).
Treatment
Na+ Ca+2 Mg+2
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
USC 6.19 1.73 17.6 16.4 3.81 2.65
UWBC 5.65 0.23 17.7 19.7 3.95 2.94
UBSC 6.22 0.26 17.9 20.9 3.92 3.42
UGWC 6.21 0.39 17.3 20.2 4.00 3.70
SC 5.76 1.76 17.6 16.0 3.88 2.73
SWBC 5.94 0.38 18.1 19.2 3.99 2.68
SBSC 6.02 0.33 17.5 19.8 3.96 2.59
SGWC 5.81 0.33 17.7 19.5 4.02 2.63
Geoderma, 259-260 : 45-55 Vijayasatya and David , 2015
USC =Unsterilized control soil , UWBC=Unsterilized soil + unsterilized Woodchip Biochar, UBSC =Unsterilized
soil + unsterilized Biosolids compost, UGWC= Unsterilized soil + unsterilized Greenwaste compost, SC= Pre-
sterilized control soil, SWBC= Pre-sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized Woodchip Biochar , SBSC= Pre-
sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized Biosolids compost, SGWC= Pre-sterilized control soil + Pre-sterilized
Greenwaste compost

Characteristics of Amendment
The amendment are;
1. Natural or synthetic.
2. Soil specific; i.e. Different soils require different amendment
as per the problem associated.
3. Absorb water rapidly.
4. Cost effective.
5. Eco-friendly.

Shallow, stunted rooting
occurs
Poor air & water movement
Water ponds
on surface
Increase yields & soil
productivity
Improved water infiltration
Enhanced soil structure
holds water & nutrients
Roots, water & air
move freely &
distributed uniformly

Table 1: Change in soil pH, EC and ESP during incubation with various amendments.
Amendments
pH EC ESP
7th
days
21th
days
35th
days
7th
days
21th
days
35th
days
7th
days
21th
days
35th
days
Control 8.70 8.71 8.72 0.46 0.45 0.47 31.99 31.32 31.64
Gypsum 8.30 7.80 7.30 0.47 0.46 0.43 29.21 17.32 12.80
Goat manure 8.67 8.40 7.87 0.53 0.48 0.40 30.54 20.53 13.78
Poultry manure 8.60 8.20 7.60 0.46 0.45 0.41 31.50 25.50 21.60
Vermicompost 8.65 8.40 8.01 0.48 0.46 0.39 29.76 17.49 11.20
Green manure 8.50 8.10 7.02 0.47 0.46 0.43 31.87 26.77 16.21
Coir pith compost 8.65 8.50 7.99 0.47 0.45 0.44 30.65 26.30 23.43
FYM 8.60 8.30 7.77 0.45 0.44 0.41 30.41 20.41 14.90
Texture-Clay loam, pH-8.7, EC - 0.46 (dSm-1), ESP-31.99 %, Organic carbon content-0.53 %
Journal of Crop and Weed, 13(2): 11-14 (2017) Naorem et al., 2017, West Bengal

Table 2: Yield components of the two rice varieties in response to different rates of
biocompost application in sodic soil.
Treatment
Plant height (cm) Biomass per plant (g) Ear bearing tillers
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Naren
dra
usar 3
NDR
359
Nare
ndra
usar
3
NDR
359
Naren
dra
usar 3
NDR
359
Naren
dra
usar 3
NDR
359
No
Biocompost
98.4 99.4 98.5 101.1 37.3 35.6 44.0 46.6 5.76 6.67 7.73 8.87
Biocompost
2 t ha-1 101.9 102.1 103.5 105.5 37.7 38.7 49.0 58.4 6.94 7.28 8.13 10.07
Biocompost
4 t ha-1 102.4 103.9 104.2 106.4 41.2 43.6 51.7 61.0 7.36 8.00 9.13 10.27
Biocompost
6 t ha-1 102.6 105.3 105.3 108.0 44.5 45.7 53.4 63.0 7.75 10.70 10.60 10.73
SEm± 1.19 1.67 1.73 2.4 0.29 0.43 1.71 2.44 0.43 0.61 0.43 0.60
CD at 5% NS NS NS NS NS 1.28 5.21 7.37 NS 1.84 NS NS
American Journal of Plant Sciences,5:7-13 Khan et al., 2014, Uttar Pradesh
Texture - silty clay texture (24% sand, 55% silt, 21% clay), pH - 9.3, EC - 2.8 (dSm-1)

Fig 2: Effect of amendments on soil pH (a),exch. Na+(b), ESP (c) and ECe (d) of saline -
sodic soils in lab experiment. Application rate is the mass ratio of amendments to dried
soil.
PAFS = Polymeric aluminum ferric sulfate, PAS = Polymeric aluminum sulfate, PFS = Polymeric ferric
sulfate, PAFC = Polymeric aluminum ferric chloride

Table 7: Mean yield components of wheat as affected by different treatments.
Treatment
Biomass
(kg ha-1)
Plant
density
(m-2)
Spikes
(m-2)
Spikelet
(spikes-1)
Fertile
Spikelet
1000-
grain
weight (g)
SW 4060 122 455 16.20 9.64 30.65
WAG 4633 132 572 16.73 12.63 31.01
F50 5970 314 1345 18.27 15.88 38.67
F75 6830 334 1579 18.40 16.21 38.97
F100 7780 388 1735 19.87 16.71 40.40
C50 6590 335 1378 18.00 16.00 39.23
C75 7370 358 1605 18.20 16.15 38.97
C100 7510 371 1721 18.80 16.62 38.80
LSD (5%) 410 24 367 2.63 3.11 4.2
SW, sodic water; WAG, dissolved gypsum in irrigation water; F, fine-grade gypsum; C, coarse-
grade gypsum; 50%, 75% and 100% of gypsum requirement
Geoderma, 193-194 : 246-255 Rasouli et al., 2013, Iran
pH - 9.11, ECe - 3.42 (dSm-1), SAR -24 (meq L-1)1/2, CEC - 17 (cmolc kg-1), B.D.- 1.5 (Mg m-3)

Table 10: Effect of defferent organic and inorganic amendments on pH, EC, ESP of soil.
Treatment
pH EC (dSm-1) ESP (%)
30 day 60 day 90 day 30 day 60 day 90 day 30 day 60 day 90 day
Control 10.00 9.90 9.80 1.82 1.76 1.70 47.37 46.12 45.00
Py 50 9.30 9.23 9.20 0.70 0.65 0.61 38.57 37.15 34.77
Py 75 9.20 9.17 9.00 0.64 0.59 0.55 36.86 34.94 32.64
Py 100 9.00 8.93 8.90 0.59 0.53 0.50 35.02 32.19 28.24
BGS 9.47 9.40 9.30 0.78 0.71 0.65 39.57 38.66 37.93
FYM 9.57 9.50 9.40 0.85 0.80 0.72 40.24 39.12 38.21
SPM 9.40 9.30 9.27 0.69 0.64 0.58 39.31 37.65 36.86
Py 50+BGS 9.20 9.10 9.03 0.67 0.62 0.56 38.26 36.55 34.02
Py 75+BGS 9.03 8.90 8.80 0.62 0.58 0.53 36.52 33.95 32.99
Py 50+FYM 9.27 9.20 9.10 0.70 0.64 0.60 38.26 36.13 35.27
Py 75+FYM 9.17 9.10 9.00 0.64 0.58 0.55 36.56 34.49 32.49
Py 50+SPM 9.03 8.90 8.90 0.58 0.54 0.50 37.33 35.76 25.88
Py 75+SPM 8.87 8.80 8.60 0.51 0.49 0.45 35.43 34.55 32.09
mean 9.27 9.18 9.10 0.75 0.70 0.65 38.38 36.71 35.10
SEm 0.127 0.142 0.133 0.014 0.017 0.022 0.744 0.746 0.656
CD at 5% 0.370 0.414 0.386 0.040 0.050 0.063 2.162 2.170 1.908
pH- 10.07, EC -1.92 (dSm-1), ESP -51.21 %, SAR - 71.69
M.Sc. Thesis, RAU, Pusa Manoj kumar, 1998

Agricultural Water Management, 120 : 39-45 Yazdanpanah et al., 2013, Iran
C = Control, M = Decomposed cattle manure (M: 50 g kg−1), P =Decomposed pistachio residue (P: 50 g
kg−1), G = gypsum (G: 5.2 g kg−1; equivalent of gypsum requirement), (M + G) = cattle manure + gypsum
and (P + G) = pistachio residue + gypsum
Fig. 5: Cumulative microbial respiration rate with the time of incubation for the soil
treatments and irrigation with untreated (A) and treated water (B).
pH - 7.8, EC - 19.81 (dSm-1), SAR – 32.2 (meq L-1)1/2

Remediation of salt-affected soil using amendments for improving soil health and productivity

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Remediation of salt-affected soil using amendments for improving soil health and productivity (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Remediation of salt-affected soil using amendments for improving soil health and productivity

Editor's Notes