Raj sr

Document Sample
Raj sr Powered By Docstoc
					Chapter 1
Introduction :
        Rajasthan is situated in north western part of India between 230 3’ and 300
12’ N latitudes and 690 30’E and 780 17’ E longitudes, the western and northern
boundries touches the boundary of Pakistan while in north and north -east it is
bounded by Punjab, Haryana and U.P. The boundary is further shared in east and
south -east by M.P. and in the South- west by Gujarat. Being a second largest state
it covers an area of 34.2 million hectares forming 10.4 per cent of total
geographical area of the country.
        Physiographically the Aravallis divide the state into western region with
desert sandy plain,scattered aeolian dunes and interdunal flats. The eastern part is
mostly alluvial and southern part has heavy soils or rocky eroded upland mostly
hilly in nature. Nearly 40 per cent of the area located primarily in the Jaisalmer,
Barmer, Jodhpur, Bikaner and Churu districts had a variable coverage of dunes
being dominated by longitudinal and coalesced parabolic types. The continuity of
these is interrupted by hills and sheet rock exposures.
        The climate varies from arid in the western part to humid in the southern
part.. Rainfall in the state varies from 920 mm in south-east to merely 100 mm in
the extreme western districts. The distribution of rainfall is generally erratic,
occurring mostly during the period from July to September.Of the total area 57 per
cent is arid, 37 per cent semi-arid and 6 per cent is sub humid to humid.There is a
wide variation in the temperature ranging from below freezing point in winter to
some time as high as 520 C in summer.Soil temperature at 5 cm depth ranges from
35 to 450C during monsoon period. The mean relative humidity in the afternoon
during summer ranges from 20 to 35 per cent and during monsoon from 48 to 60
per cent. The mean evaporative rate during summer exceeds 10 mm per day. The
higest PET of 2063 mm has been recorded in Jaisalmer in the west and 1745 mm
in east at Jaipur.
        A wide variation in the climate of the state has accommodated a large
diversity of vegetation. In the arid zone Prosopis, Capparis and Zizyphus, spp.
predominate, whereas in the most desertic part Calligonum polygonoides is the
main species. The semi-arid tract is dominated by Acacia catechu and Anogeissus
                                     1
pendula. All these vegetation types are associated with a large variety of annual
and perennial grasses and shrubs.
        The water resources in Rajasthan state are very limited. These could be
classified into two i e (i) Surface (ii) Ground water. Five rivers viz. Luni, Mahi,
Sabarmati, Chambal and Banas flow through the state. The first three rivers drain
into Arabian sea and the rest two join Jamuna.
        Available land use pattern in Rajasthan indicates an increasing trend in the
net sown area and area under forest. (Table 1.1). With an impressive performance
of the state the development of facilities specially through the canal network and
tapping of under ground water, the net irrigated area during last four decades has
risen from 10.07 lac hectares during 1950-51 to 48.58 lac hectares during 1994-95
(Table 1.2). The cropping intensity of the state increased from109.5 per cent
(1961-62) to 119.7 per cent ( 1994-95).

Table 1.1 Land utilization pattern in Rajasthan (Lac ha.)
             Particulars                  1961-62       1971-72     1981-82    1991-92 1994-95
 i)Geographical Area                          339.9         342.9      342.3     342.5    342.4`
 ii)Forest                                       8.79       14.01     20..78     23.70    24.51
 iii)Not available for cultivation            63.13         60.51      44.71     43.93    43.37
 iv)Other cultivated land excluding           84.33         79.26      80.75     73.66    69.33
 fallow land
 v) Fallow land                               46.26         36.46      40.32     46.33    38.01
 vi) Net sown area                          137.43        152.63      155.78    154.89   170.21
 vii)Gross cropped area                     150.45        167.73      185.97    180.93   203.80
 Cropping intensity                           109.5         109.9      119.4     116.8    119.7

         Source: Department of statistics ,GOR -1997


Table 1.2 Source wise net irrigated area in Rajasthan ( ‘000 ha)


                                             2
    Year           Canals             Tanks          Wells & Tube wells   Others   Total
  1950-51            224                82                  684            17      1007
  1960-61            535               166                 1014            37      1752
  1970-71            755               270                 1083            23      2132
  1981-82            946                85                 1827            45      2903
  1991-92           1424               163                 2702            54      4343
  1994-95           1427               246                 3134            50      4858
       Source: Department of statistics ,GOR -1997
       The soils of the state have been grouped at sub-order and great group level
under five orders i.e. Aridisols,alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols and Vertisols. The
names of the soil orders, sub-divisions upto great group along with their
equivalents in old system of soil classification are presented in table 1.3
        Based on physiographic divisons of state, its rainfall pattern, soil types,
availability of irrgation water, cropping patterns and administrative units, the state
of Rajasthan has been classified into five principal zones, four of which are further
divided into subzones each,making in all ten agroclimatic zones (fig-1),main
features of these zones are presentd in table 1.4




                                         3
Tabe 1.3 : Apprpxomate equivalent of old and new system of classification.
       Order        Sub-Order      Great Group              Approximate equivalent in old system
       Aridisols    Orthids        camborthids              Sierozems,desert soils
                                   Calciorthids
                                   Salorthids               Saline soils of depression
                                   Paleorthids
       Alfisols     Ustalfs        Haplustalfs              Red loam, black soils, brown soils,
                                                            yellowish brown soils of foothills,
                                                            alluvial soils
       Entisols     Psamments      Torripsamments           Desert soils and sand dunes
                                   Quartzipsamments
                    Fluvents       Torrifluvents            Alluvial soils (old and recent )
                                   Ustifluvents
  Inceptisols       Ochrepts       Ustichrepts              Brown soils, red and yellow soils of
                                                            foothills
  Vertisols         Usterts        Chromusterts             Black soils
                                   Pellusterts
* Source : Soils of Rajasthan : Survey and classificatioin in Retrospect and
Prospect.Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan,Jaipur 1974-75




Table -1.4 Main features of the agro-climatic zones of Rajasthan.
 S.N     Name of Zone     Geographical     Area % to     Normal           Major Crops
                          Area (‘000ha)     state area   Rainfall(mm)



                                           4
 I A     Arid       Westren     4671            13.64    100-300     bajra,kharif pulses,guar
         Plain
 IB     Irrigated        Noth- 2063              6.03    100-350     gram,wheat,mustard,
         Western plain                                               cotton, guar,bajra
 IC*     Hyper           Arid   7701            22.50    100-300     bajra,kharif pulses,guar
         partially irrigated
         western plain
 II A    Tramsitional           3694            10.79    300-350     bajra,guar, kharif pulses,
         Plain of                                                    gram
         Inland Drainage
 IIB     Transitional Plain     3010             8.79    300-350    bajra, guar,til,kharif pulses,
         of Luni Basin                                               wheat, rape and mustard
 IIIA    Semi-Arid              2953             8.63    500-600     bajra, jowar, til, wheat,
         Eastern                                                     barley, gram, mustard
         Plain
 IIIB    Flood prone            2368             6.92    500-650     bajra, jowar, wheat
         Eastern Plain                                               gram,mustard
 IVA     Sub-Humid              3359             9.81    500-700     maize, jowar, til
         Southern Plain                                              groundnut, wheat, barley,
         and Aravalli Hills                                          gram, mustard
 IVB     Humid Southern         1722             5.03    500-1050    maize,    paddy,      kharif
         Plain                                                       pulses, wheat, gram
 V       Humid South-           2696             7.86    650-1000    jowar, maize, til,
         Eastern Plain                                               wheat, gram, mustard

          * Newly created zone Source : Souvenir -25 years of soil based reaserch (1965-
90), RAU,Bikaner.


       On the basis of general fertility survey(Dhir & Singh 1985), soils of
Rajasthan have been grouped into ine fertility groups (table 1.5)
Table 1.5        Soil fertility status of different districts of Rajasthan

                                            5
S.No   Name of the districts                           Fertility groups
                                         Available N     Available P      Available K
1      Ajmer, Jalore, Nagaur             Low             Medium           Medium
2      Banswara, Chittorgarh, Udaipur,   Medium          Medium           Medium
       Dungarpur
3      Bharatpur, Alwar                  Low             Medium           Medium
4      Barmer,Jaisalmer, Bikaner,Churu   Very Low        Medium           Medium
5      Bundi, Kota, Tonk, Bhilwara       Medium          Medium           Medium
6      Shri Ganganagar                   Very Low        Medium           High
7      Jaipur, Swai Madhopur             Very Low        High             Medium
8      Jhunjhunu, Sikar                  Very Low        Medium           Medium
9.     Jodhpur, Pali                     Low             Medium           Medium




                                         6
Chapter 2. Nature of salt affected soils and poor quality waters in Rajasthan.
         At present about one million hactares of land is affected by salinity and
sodicity in Rajasthan.Considerable area of salt affected soils lies in
Jaipur,Bhilwara,Pali,Ajmer , Bharatpur,Bundi,Jodhpur, Kota and Sri Ganganagar
districts.All western districts suffer due to this problem.The saline alkali soils in
Rajasthan usually occur in association with normal soils of arid and semi arid
regions. The contributing factors for the formation of these soils are low rainfall,
high temperature and high evaporation, presence of salts at some depth in the soil
profile, use of poor quality waters in soils having low permeability, high water
table and impended drainage. Excessive use of irrigation water and seepage from
canals resulting into rise of water table are also very important contributory factors
in secondary salinization of soils and developments of saline alkali soils and water
logging in canal command areas. The quality of under ground irrigation water in
majority of the cases in arid and semi arid regions is poor. The problem of salt
infestation due to use of saline waters for irrigation had covered sizeable area in
Jaipur district followed by Ajmer and Pali districts. Jodhpur,Churu,Bikaner,Sikar,
Barmer and Jaisalmer districts are also badly affected districts with this problem
particularly where under ground saline waters are being used for irrigation. The EC
of under ground waters of Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jodhpur,Pali and Nagaur districts
varies form 3.0 -7.0. 2.9-9.0, 2.0-10.0, 2.9-7.4 and 3.0 -8.4 dS/m, respectively.
Saline water problem is more intensive in western Rajasthan (Mehta et.al. ,1969).
        Soluble salts which accumulate in saline sodic soils consist mainly of
chlorides and sulphate of calcium, magnesium and sodium. Usually carbonate,
bicarbonate and nitrate ions are in smaller quantities. Boron also occasionally
occurs in small quantities. The nature and proportion of the accumulated salts in
soil obviously depends on the source of the salts and nature of soil itself. These
salts affect the plant growth either due to their presence in higher quantities or
changes in the exchange complex of the soil colloids or by indirect effect on soil
microbes and plant root activities, or a combination of all these factors.Chemical
analysis of saline alkali soils of Rajasthan is given in table 2.1
         The soil salinity and sodicity problems of Rajasthan are primarily due to
irrigation with poor quality water. The severity of the problems is further
accentuated by the aridity of the state. Out of total irrigated area of 48.58 lac ha

                                      7
coverd by well irrigation in the state, 31.34 lac ha forming 64.5 per cent are
affected with the problems of salinity and alkanity. (Table2.2)
       Studies conducted on water quality for irrigation in 11 disticts of Rajasthan
revealed that ground waters are sodic in character dut to high SAR or RSC values.
The SAR ranges from 0.15 to 176.8 with an average value of 13.9. In districts of
Barmer,Bikaner and Jaisalmer, more than 33.3 per cent waters have SAR more
than 18.High RSC generally occurs in low to medium salinity waters and ranges
form nil to 68.8 me/L with an average value of 3.1 me/L. The districts
viz.Jhunjhunu (42.5%), Nagaur (32.3%) and Sikar (30.2%) have high RSC in
ground water (more than 5me/L) ( Gupta, 1991).
        The problem due to seepage of water under canal irragation with
consequent rising of water table and development of salinity has affected vast
areas in Kota,Bundi,Bharatpur,Chittorgarh and Pali districts. Saline and alkali soils
under irriagation are maximum in Jaipur,Bharatpur,Bhilwara and Pali districts.The
least affected districts in the state are Udaipur,Dungarpur and Banswara.
        In arid and semi arid regions of Rajasthan a higher concentration of
fluorine,associated with salinity was observed in the districts of Bhilwara,Jaipur
and Nagaur.Of these well waters of Chaksu tehsil (Jaipur district) were more
toxic.
         In Rajasthan Boron in irrigation waters is quite high and ranges from traces
to 5ppm in some well wateres of Nagaur,Jaipur,Sirohi,Jodhpur,Bhilwara and Pali
districts.
        Nitrates are wide spread in ground waters of Rajasthan.In some cases
nitrates as high as 30 me/L have been reported in Nagaur,Jaipur and Sikar districts
of Rajasthan.




                                      8
Table 2.2 Salt affected area under irrigation in different District of Rajasthan
 Districts                     Net irrigated area (94-95)   Salt affected area under irrgation (`000 ha)
                                                            Canal         Tank        Wells       Inudation   Total
 Ajmer                                  108.41                  --          1.64       50.06           --     51.70
 Alwar                                  302.97                 1.06          --        20.80           --     21.86
 Banswara                                79.19                  --          0.16        0.40           --      0.56
 Barmer                                  38.12                  --           --         9.31           --      9.31
 Bharatpur & Dholpur                    267.29                 3.54         6.12       39.14          5.16    53.96
 Bhilwara                               187.69                 0.10        12.04       91.00           --     103.14
 Bikaner                                 96.97                  --           --         0.05           --      0.05
 Bundi                                  171.51                35.12         1.02       16.53           --     52.67
 Chittorgarh                            193.40                 0.24         0.86       51.21           --     52.31
 Churu                                   11.62                  --           --         0.36           --      0.36
 Dungarpur                               28.72                  --           --         0.05           --      0.05
 Sriganganagar             &            814.86                  --           --         0.35           --      0.35
 Hanumangarh
 Jaipur & Dausa                         425.95                  --          0.28       139.96          --     140.24
 Jaisalmer                                6.56                  --           --         0.19           --      0.19
 Jalore                                 281.43                  --           --        36.42           --     36.42
 Jhalawar                               135.72                  --           --         0.28           --      0.28
 Jhunjhunu                              115.71                  --           --         0.59           --      0.59
 Jodhpur                                 90.98                  --           --        21.56           --     21.56
 Kota & Baran                           349.30                10.12         1.02       10.12           --     21.26
 Nagaur                                 183.01                  --           --        14.40           --     14.40
 Pali                                   228.83                 0.67          --        102.41          --     103.08
 Swai. Madhopur                         200.99                  --           --         1.04           --      1.04
 Sikar                                  136.52                  --           --        12.60           --     12.60
 Sirohi                                  95.97                 0.12          --         5.16           --      5.28
 Tonk                                   143.06                  --           --         0.88           --      0.88
 Udaipur & Rajsamand                    163.48                  --           --         0.70           --      0.70
 Total                                  4858.26               50.97        22.12       615.45         5.16    704.84

             Source:   Mehta et al,(1969)



                                                      9
         At present about 1.8 lac ha land is affected by salinity and sodicity in
IGNP Command area. This area is increasing day by day due to extension of
irrigation facilities.Salt affected soils in IGNP are mainly located in three areas
Anupgarh Branch,Suratgarh Branch and Eastern Block (Table2.3). Maximum area
is located in Anupgarh Branch due to bad soil physical properties viz. Poor
infilteration rate,high bulk density,poorly developed structure,stratification,hard
crust formation,tillage problem etc are encountered. The soils predominately clay
to silty clay with medium sub angular blocky structure. They are difficult to
cultivate when dry and remain wet for longer time than normel soils and are boggy
when wet which leads to distrupt and delay in planting and harvesting
operation.EC varies 0.50 to 55 dS/m,pH 8.5 to 9.0 (in certain cases upto 9.8). The
flood plain soils of Ghaggar bed are invariably infested with salinity and alkanity
problem. The sodic soils occur in patches and these are mainly found in Tal lands.
       The water table in IGNP Command area is rising at alarming rate resulting
into water-logging and developnet of soil salinity in the area.The status of
developent of water-logging in IGNP is given in table 2.4
Table 2.3 Area of salt affected soils in IGNP (ha)
 Soil type                  Anupgarh Branch                    Suratgarh Branch                  Eastern Block
 salt affected        salt affected      % of total       Salt affected      % of total   Salt            % of total
                                         area                                area         affected        area
 Highly               73850              27.2             19930              17.1         37230           23.7
 Moderately           34580              12.7               7830             6.7          --              --
 Total                108430             39.9             27760              23.8         372.30          23.7

              Source :UNDP,F.A.O.(1971)
Table 2.4 Water logged area in IGNP command.
      S.N0.                      Category of water logging                     Stage I    Stage II    K.S. lift
 1.             Potentially sensitive (Water table 6 m below ground level)       198643      17900      1920
 2.             Critical (Water table 1.0 to 1.5 m below ground level)            18970       4062      1120
 3.             Water logged (Water table less than 1 m below ground              10192       1000        400
                level)

              Source: Hooja et al,1987.

                                                       10
       After introduction of the canal water in the IGNP, water-logging problem
has developed. It has been observed that on both North and South sides of
Rajasthan Canal feeder,i.e. Badopal.,Dabli,.Seelwala,Tibi areas, water table is
within two meters. In between Rawatsar and Maseetawali head, the problem is
mainly due to seepage of canal water whereas in Lunkaransar lift canal area, the
problem is of perched watertable. In part of Gaggar flood area, the problem has
also developed due to water stagnation in the depressions.
        In IGNP command stage II,out of total area (8,36,620 ha) surveyed, 44.5%
area has hard pan within 10m depth from surface.If this area is brought into
cultivation and excess irrigation is applied, it may also turn into saline one and the
problem of water-logging may come up.
        Gypsiferous soils are found in Jamsar, Lunkaransar, Soorsar,Dattor, Sallor
distributory and Khusar minor and Mohangarh etc. The soils are shallow,found in
intradunal flats at low lying areas. A consolidated gypsiferous material either as a
hard strata or in powder form is found in soil. The surface soils are generally
coarse textured but medium and fine textrued soil may also appear in depressions.
Most of the deposits are excavated for gypsum and other purposes.
        Thus a large area of salt affected soils is not being used properly. Such a
huge area can not be left unused in view of new obligations of increased
production and sustainability. By the end of 20th centuary the population of the
country is likely to be 1000 million. To support this population requirement of
food grains will be about 250 million tonnes. So increasing and sustaining high
agricultural productivity even in waste,barren and salt affected land will countinue
to be the main challenge before agriculture scientists. Therefore, the scientists will
have to devise the solution for utilization of salt affected land.
        Further,the quality of underground irrigation waters of arid and semi arid
parts of Rajasthan is poor and that too is available in limited quantity. It is rather
not feasible to change the quality of irrigation water. In the absence of any source
of good quality waters, farmers are left with no other alternative except to use this
water. So to develope a technology for the use of such waters is of utmost
importance.In view of the above, initialy AICRP project entitled “ Water
Mangement and Soil Salinity”, was started in the year 1969 . The major problem
was related to use salt affected soils and use of poor quality water.Looking to the

                                      11
seriousness of salinity and alkanity of the soil and poor quality water in the state,
ICAR sanctioned a centre of All India Co-ordinated Research Project on
Management of Salt Affected Soils and Use of Saline water in Agriculture at
S.K.N. College of Agriculture, Jobner in 1980-81 with the coordinated unit at
Central Soil Research Institute, Karnal. The Jobner area represented a non comand
situation where main source of irrigation is open well or tube well. The qualitry of
irrigation water is poor characterised by high EC, SAR and RSC. Mainly the
experiments were conducted to devise the methods for safe utilization of poor
quality waters. Lateron, the project was transferred in May, 1990 to Bikaner-
Head quarter of Raj. Agricultural university, where poor quality waters pose a
challenge in non command area and secondary salinization in IGNP command
area. The formation of pearched water table in gypsiferous soils is also a problem.




Table 2.1 Chemical analysis of some saline - alkali soils of Rajasthan.
                                     12
Depth    pH    EC (dS/m)               Saturation extract analysis (me/L)                Exchangeable cations me/100 g
(cm)                    Ca     Mg     Na      K         CO3+HCO3        SO4    Cl      Ca      Mg    Na      K     ESP
                                      WELL IRRIGATION          Kaparda ( jodhpur )
0-15     8.8   5.0      3.2    5.7    39.0    0.3       9.0             19.3    20.0   1.0     3.8   2.5     0.3   16.6
15-35    8.6   14.0     14.5   13.1   111.2   0.5       7.0             23.9   108.5   5.4     4.9   3.1     0.3   22.3
35-50    9.0   18.0     13.2   20.5   147.0   0.5       4.0             32.3   145.0   8.8     3.8   5.1     0.1   28.1
50-95    9.0   11.0     4.7    6.6    98.0    0.3       6.0             31.5   72.2    6.3     5.7   4.0     0.2   24.8
95-115   9.0   12.0     2.7    3.9    112.0   0.3       5.0             47.0   86.5    11.8    2.4   5.3     0.5   26.5
                                      Girdharo-ki Dhani (Pali)
0-25     7.8   2.8      7.5    2.4    18.5    0.5       3.2             23.7   2.0     11.2    2.5   2.0     0.4   12.0
25-45    7.6   14.0     42.0   4.4    95.5    0.2       2.5             87.5   51.7    8.5     5.3   1.8     0.2   11.5
45-75    7.9   12.5     34.5   6.1    0.0     0.5       3.2             88.7   29.0    6.2     1.9   0.8     0.3   9.1
75-145   7.8   13.0     36.0   5.8    88.0    0.5       3.2             88.7   43.5    3.2     1.9   0.3     0.2   6.2
                                      CANAL IRRIGATION Digod (Kota)
0-17     8.4   3.9      6.3    4.5    27.2    0.2       8.4             12.2   -       12.9    9.7   6.7     0.1   23.7
17-65    8.8   2.6      5.7    1.7    22.1    0.1       19.4            6.2    19.0    15.1    9.2   10.6     0.    4.1
                                                                                                              2
65-95    8.8   7.8      20.7   12.4   53.0    0.2       10.0            34.0   34.8    12.3    9.6   8.3     0.1   7.4
95-165   8.2   6.4      19.7   11.9   30.0    0.2       17.8            33.0   33.6    9.7     8.1   4.4     0.1   15.3
                                      Suansars (Kota)
0-15     8.1   10.0     20.2   6.3    70.0    0.2       7.6             42.0   49.4    14.6    3.1   2.3     0.1   11.8
15-40    8.2   8.7      11.5   4.7    58.0    0.2       6.0             25.0   54.2    16.0    4.8   2.2     0.1   30.4
40-68    8.5   7.0      11.9   3.0    53.0    0.1       10.2            22.0   33.4    12.7    3.8   7.5     0.1   30.4
68-95    9.3   1.6      2.1    2.6    10.6    0.1       7.8             2.8    5.6     7.2     4.3   9.0     0.2   45.0
95-105   9.5   2.6      1.5    0.4    22.1    0.2       11.4            6.6    9.0     8.6     7.3   9.0     0.1   36.5
                                      TANK IRRIGATION Negadiya (Bhilwara)
0-20     8.1   25.0     18.2   9.6    220.0   0.1       5.6           164.0    85.0    12.4    1.7   8.6     0.2   20.6
20-50    8.3   15.0     6.7    4.9    135.0   0.2       3.4           120.0    30.0    15.0    4.0   6.0     0.2   23.6
50-85    8.6   8.0      2.9    4.3    78.0    0.2       3.2           64.0     14.2    11.2    3.6   4.9     0.2   24.6
85-105   8.6   7.5      5.0    5.2    63.0    0.2       3.8           60.0     10.8    10.4    2.5   1.6     0.2   11.8

         Source : Saline-Alkli Soils in Rajasthan, their nature,extent and mangement,Research
         Monograph-1, Department of Agriculture,Government of Rajasthan,Jaipur




                                              13
Chapter 3

Major Research achievements
  The salient achievements of the project are given in following pages :

1. Characterisation of under ground waters and soils :

Jaipur District :
         Twelve tehsils of Jaipur district viz. Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jaipur,
Sanganer, Bassi, Dudu, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar, Jamva Ramgarh and Dausa were
surveyed to know the underground water quality(Vyas et.al,1993). Range of
chemical characteristics is reported in table 1. Percentage of samples of tehsil of
Jaipur district falling into different pH, EC, RSC and SAR ranges are reported in
table 2.
pH :
       All the samples analysed fell in the pH range of 7.0 to 9.0 (Table 2). 49.7
percent samples had pH between 7.0 to 8.0 and 51.3 percent samples fell in the pH
range of 8.0 to 9.0. About 12.1, 73.2 and 14.7 percent samples had pH<7.5, 7.5-
8.5 and >8.5, respectively.

EC :
      EC of 79.5 percent samples was less than 4 dSm-1 and about 62.5 percent
samples had EC less than 2.0 dSm-1. In case of Bassi, Dausa, Dudu, Phagi and
Sambhar Tehsils, more than 10 percent samples had EC>6 dSm-1.
RSC :
        Except Sanganer, Bassi and Sambhar Tehsils, more than 54 percent
samples had RSC < 2.5 meL-1 and about 7.5 to 27.1 percent samples had RSC
between 2.5 to 5.0 meL-1. Sanganer and Sambhar Tehsils had more than 40
percent samples having RSC > 5.0 meL-1. On an average 57.8, 19.5, 15.0 and 7.5
percent of total samples had RSC < 2.5, 2.5-5.0, 5.0-10.0 and > 10.0 meL-1,
respectively.

                                     14
SAR :
       In Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amber, Jamva Ramgarh and Jaipur Tehsils more
than 80 percent samples had SAR value of < 10. Sanganer, Phagi, Chaksu,
Sambhar and Dausa Tehsils had 34.4 to 41.5 percent samples having SAR between
10 to 20. In Sambhar and Dudu Tehsils more than 30 percent samples had
SAR>20.
        On an average 35.5 percent water samples had none of the problem and
hence, were of good quality (Table 3). The range of good quality water in
different Tehsils, however varies from 11.0 in Dudu and 65.2 percent in Amber
Tehsil. In Viratnagar, Amber, Jamva Ramgarh and Jaipur Tehsils, percentage of
good quality water was above 50. In Kotputali and Chaksu it was about 37.7
percent and it was low in Bassi, Sanganer, Phagi and Dudu Tehsils and the lowest
in Sambhar Tehsil (7.4%).
       In general there was low problem of salinity of water and also sodicity
alone. The results showed that there was problem of RSC, which was as high as
69.8 percent samples in Sanganer followed by Sambhar (58.0%) and Bassi
(54.2%) Tehsils. In other Tehsils it was in the narrow range of 33 to 42 percent.
There was both salinity and sodicity problem in Dudu Tehsil (42.6%).
       There was a severe problem (> 50%) of soil alkalinity in Viratnagar
(72.9%) and Phagi (64.9%) Tehsils, moderate (25 to 50%) problem in Sambhar
(46.7%), Jaipur (36.1%), Dudu (36.0%) and Chaksu (32.8%) Tehsils and slight
problem in Bassi (23.7%), Amber (20.3%), Dausa (18.7%), Kotputali (11.3%) and
Jamva Ramgarh (10.4%) Tehsils (Table 4). Severe problem of soil salinity was
observed in Phagi (61.4%) Tehsil while it was moderate in Dudu (32.6%) Tehsil
and slight in Tehsils of Chaksu (24.6%), Sambhar (16.6%), Bassi (15.3%) and
Dausa (14.6%).

Bikaner district :
       Survey of underground waters of non-command area of Nokha, Kolayat,
Loonkaransar and Bikaner Tehsils of Bikaner District revealed that water table of
tubewells varied from 36 to 208 m. EC and pH of tubewell waters varied from 0.8
to 10.3 dSm-1 and 7.1 to 9.0, respectively. Range of chemical characteristics of

                                   15
tubewell/openwell waters in Bikaner District is reported in table 5. The percent
distribution of water samples in different ranges of EC and RSC is given in table 6
and depicted in fig.-1. 81.3, 16.3 and 2.4 percent of samples had RSC < 2.5, 2.5 to
5.0 and >5.0 meL-1, respectively. On an average 32.6, 16.3, 17.4, 12.8, 4.1, 9.3,
4.1 and 3.4 percent samples were categorized as good, marginally saline, High-
SAR saline, High-SAR non-saline, saline, marginally alkali, alkali and highly
alkali, respectively. About 11.1, 42.9, 29.7 and 16.3 percent of the samples
recorded salinity <1.0, 1-2, 2-4 and >4.0 dSm-1, respectively. The waters are
mostly Na-Mg-Ca type with dominance of chloride followed by
carbonates+bicarbonates
        Analysis of surface soil samples collected from the fields irrigated with
corresponding water revealed that EC of all the soil samples is < 1 dSm-1 and soil
is alkaline in nature. Correlation studies revealed that EC of soil is positively and
significantly correlated with ECiw (r=0.411**) and potential salinity of irrigation
water (r=0.465**). Correlation between SARiw and SAR of soil was found
positive (r=0.206) but non-significant. It might be due to the fact that most of the
wells are operating since 1992 and onward only.




                                     16
Table1:Range of chemical characteristics of Tubewells/Open well waters of
various      Tehsils of Jaipur District
Chemical Characteristics                                                                        Jaipur District
                                               Kotputali (53)*        Viratnagar (70)        Amber (207)         Jaipur (107)        Sanganer (53)
pH                                        7.0-9.0                7.3-8.8                7.2-9.0            7.1-8.2              7.0-8.7
                      -1
EC (dSm )                                 0.6-7.0                0.9-7.0                0.4-2.9            0.5-6.1              0.6-6.5
        ++                 -1
Ca               (meL )                   2.4-22.2**             1.4-22.6**             0.2-4.0            0.2-0.6              0.6-15.6**
        ++
Mg ( ” )                                  --                     --                     0.0-10.0           0.4-15.7             --
        +
Na               (”)                      1.0-47.2               1.0-46.0               1.0-24.0           1.0-41.0             1.0-54.2
    +
K                (”)                      0.1-2.0                0.1-0.5                --                 0.01-1.0             0.1-0.5
            -2
CO3 +HCO3-1(”)                            4.0-16.0               4.0-18.0               1.8-10.0           1.6-16.0             3.2-27.0
    -1
Cl               (”)                      0.8-52.2               0.8-47.0               0.0-156.0          0.8-46.2             1.0-46.6
RSC ( ” )                                 Nil-12.4               Nil-11.0               Nil-11.9           Nil-18.2             Nil-19.2
SAR                                       0.7-19.8               0.6-15.2               0.6-21.9           0.4-30.8             0.6-25.5
                                                 Dudu (209)             Phagi (59)           Chaksu (61)        Sambhar (162)        Jamva Ramgarh
                                                                                                                                          (48)
pH                                        7.1-8.9                7.2-8.9                7.3-8.7            7.0-8.4              7.4-8.8
EC (dSm-1)                                0.5-17.6               0.7-12.0               0.6-8.2            0.6-41.6             0.4-2.3
        ++                 -1
Ca               (meL )                   0.2-0.3                2.2-69.6**             1.6-57.6**         0.5-21.5**           3.0-11.1**
        ++
Mg ( ” )                                  1.5-68.4               --                     --                 6.0-57.0             --
Na+ ( ” )                                 1.6-156.0              2.0-84.5               2.5-46.6           3.0-260.0            1.2-72.0
    +
K                (”)                      --                     0.1-0.40               --                 --                   --
CO3 +HCO3-1(-2
                                ”)        tr-43.0                4.9-26.4               3.4-17.4           4.0-40.0             2.5-17.5
    -1
Cl               (”)                      1.0-158.5              1.0-120.6              2.2-53.0           1.0-235.0            1.5-66.0
RSC ( ” )                                 Nil-20.6               Nil-19.4               Nil-12.1           Nil-36.5             Nil-12.4
SAR                                       1.1-97.8               1.2-29.3               1.3-18.3           1.5-52.0             0.6-16.8
                  *        Number of samples tested ** Figures are of Ca + Mg

                                                          17
Table 2 :Percentage of samples of Tehsils of Jaipur District falling into different pH, EC, RSC & SAR ranges
          Tehsils                         pH range                                    EC range (meL-1)
                     7.0 - 7.5   7.5 - 8.0          8.0 - 8.5   > 8.5   <2      2-4           4-6            6-8          >8
 Kotputali             1.9         13.2               56.6      28.3    64.2    22.6          7.5            5.7          --
 Viratnagar            2.9         28.4               57.2      11.4    91.4    7.1            --            1.4          --
 Amber                 6.8         20.3               28.5      44.4    96.6    3.4            --              --         --
 Jaipur                22.4        59.8               16.9      0.9     88.8    2.8           7.5            0.9          --
 Sanganer              3.8         52.8               33.9      9.4     69.8    24.5          3.8            1.9          --
 Bassi                 13.6        30.2               32.2      23.9    61.0    20.0          13.6           1.9          3.4
 Dudu                  9.6         43.5               37.8      9.1     14.5    24.6          26.6           14.5     19.7
 Phagi                 11.9        62.7               20.3      5.1     39.7    36.2          13.8           5.2          5.2
 Chaksu                14.8        49.2               32.8      3.3     52.5    37.7          6.6            1.6          1.6
 Sambhar               34.6        48.8               16.6       --     29.6    30.8          15.4           10.5     13.7
 Jamva Ramgarh         4.2         22.9               66.6      6.3     91.7    6.3           2.0              --         --
 Dausa                 17.0        34.0               41.5      7.5     62.2    17.0          11.3           5.7          3.8
 Average               12.1        37.6               35.6      14.7    62.5    17.0          10.0           4.9          5.6
                                               -1
          Tehsils                  RSC (meL ) range                                      SAR range
                      < 2.5      2.5 - 5.0           5 - 10     > 10     < 10      10 - 20           20 - 30        > 30
 Kotputali             60.4        20.8               13.2      5.7      79.2          20.8            --            --
 Viratnagar            67.1        21.4               10.0      1.4      90.0          8.6            1.4            --
 Amber                 66.2        22.2               11.0      1.9      91.3          7.7            1.0            --
 Jaipur                57.0        27.1               14.0      1.9      82.6          11.6           2.9           2.0
 Sanganer              30.2        7.5                24.5      37.7     54.7          41.5           3.8            --
 Bassi                 45.8        17.0               27.1      10.1     67.8          28.8           3.4            --
 Dudu                  64.3        13.9               16.9      4.8      27.8          28.8           20.0          23.4
 Phagi                 57.6        22.0               13.6      6.8      52.5          39.0           8.5            --
 Chaksu                62.3        18.0               18.0      1.6      65.6          34.4            --            --
 Sambhar               37.7        18.2               22.0      22.0     37.1          34.6           17.0          13.3
 Jamva Ramgarh         58.3        25.0               10.4      6.3      83.3          14.6            --           2.1
 Dausa                 54.7        15.1               17.0      13.2     37.7          41.5           13.2          7.6
 Average               57.8        19.5               15.0      7.7      62.9          23.8           7.2           6.1




                                          18
           Table 3 : Classification of irrigation waters of some Tehsils of Jaipur District
           Water quality                                        Criteria                                      Kotputali         Viratnagar             Amber             Jaipur              Sanganer           Bassi
                                                     -1                                         -1
                                            EC (dSm )               SAR          RSC (meL )                    (53)**              (70)                (207)             (107)                   (53)           (59)
A Good                                         < 2                  < 10                < 2.5                   37.7               61.4                65.2               52.3                   22.6           30.5
B Marginally saline                            2-4                  < 10                < 2.5                    9.4                   4.3              0.5               0.0                    1.0             1.7
C Saline                                       > 4                  < 10                < 2.5                    3.8                   0.0              0.0               0.0                    0.0             3.4
D Saline sodic                                 > 4                  > 10                < 2.5                    9.4                   1.4              0.5               4.7                    5.7            10.2
E1 RSC water                                   < 4                  < 10                > 2.5                   13.2               27.1                26.1               33.6                   30.2           32.2
E2 RSC water                                   < 4                  > 10                > 2.5                   26.4                   5.7              7.7               9.3                    39.6           22.0


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

           ** Number of samples tested.


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




                                                                                                                        19
                 Table 5 : Range of chemical characteristics of tube well/open well waters in Bikaner District
Chemical Characteristics                                      Range of characteristics                              Bikaner
                                                                                                                  District as a
                                                                                                                     whole
                                           Nokha           Kolayat             Loonkaransar        Bikaner
pH                                    7.1-8.8           7.5-8.8           7.6-8.7               8.0-9.9          7.1-9.0
                   -1
EC (dSm )                             1.0-6.1           0.8-10.3          2.3-7.9               0.8-7.7          0.8-10.3
            -2           -1     -1
CO3 + HCO3 (meL )                     2.5-12.5          2.5-8.4           3.0-5.8               1.6-7.8          1.6-12.5
    -1              -1
Cl (meL )                             2.0-55.8          1.6-101.0         18.6-55.2             3.7-44.2         1.6-101.0
            -2
SO4 ( ” )                             0-7.0             0.1-10.8          --                    Nil-31.9         Nil-31.9
        ++
Ca               (”)                  0.4-14.7          0.5-7.5           1.4-8.6               0.3-3.8          0.3-14.7
        ++
Mg ( ” )                              0.9-12.8          0.9-18.9          2.9-7.2               0.4-11.8         0.4-18.9
        +
Na               (”)                  7.6-37.6          6.6-78.2          21.5-84.0             5.6-65.5         5.6-84.0
    +
K                (”)                  0.03-1.03         0.1-0.6           0.1-0.4               0.1-0.2          0.03-0.6
RSC ( ” )                             Nil-8.1           Nil-5.8           Nil-4.2               Nil-4.8          Nil-8.1
SAR                                   3.3-22.4          4.7-30.8          12.9-27.4             5.3-41.8         3.3-41.8
Adj. SAR                              8.4-43.9          7.9-58.2          25.8-68.8             9.3-73.2         7.9-73.2
SSP                                   28.0-91.3         47.9-90.2         78.6-88.9             60.1-95.1        28.0-95.1




                                                                     20
Table 6 : Percentage distribution of water samples in different ranges of         EC and RSC
            -1                                                        -1
 RSC (meL )                                                  EC (dSm )
                        <1             1-2             2-3                 3-4            >4     Total
                                                 Nokha Tehsil
   < 2.5                 --            48.4            17.7                11.3            6.5    83.9
2.5 - 5.0                --             9.7             1.6                 --             --     11.3
5.0 - 7.5                --             --              1.6                 --             --      1.6
   > 7.5                 --             1.6             --                  1.6            --      3.2
                                                Kolayat Tehsil
   < 2.5                 3.0           27.3            12.1                12.1           21.2     5.7
2.5 - 5.0                3.0           18.2             --                  --             --     21.2
5.0 - 7.5                3.0            --              --                  --             --      3.0
                                              Loonkaransar Tehsil
   < 2.5                 --             --             33.3                46.7           20.0   100.0
                                                Bikaner Tehsil
   < 2.5               24.2            19.4            11.3                 3.2           19.4    77.5
2.5 - 5.0                1.6           16.1             1.6                 --             3.2    22.5
                                          Bikaner District as whole
   < 2.5                 9.3           29.6            15.7                11.6           15.1    81.3
2.5 - 5.0                1.2           12.7             1.2                 --             1.2    16.3
5.0 - 7.5                0.6            --              0.6                 --             --      1.2
   > 7.5                 --             0.6             --                  0.6            --      1.2
                       11.1            42.9            17.5                12.2           16.3   100.0


    Churu Distrist:
                Survey and characterization of underground waters of Sridungargarh and
    sardarshahar tehsils of Churu district was done during 1997-98. A total of 87 water
    samples from 59 villages in Sri Dungargarh tehsil and 93 water samples from 64
    villages of Sardarshar tehsil were collected and analysed. The percent distribution of
    water quality in both the tehsils is given in table 7 and depicted in Figure 2.
                In Sridungargarh Tehsil, 72.4,11.5, 1.1,6.9,3.4 and 4.6 percent samples fell
    under good , marginally saline, saline, high-SAR saline, marginally alkali and highly
    alkali, respectively. About 87.3, 8.0, 2.3 and 2.3 percent samples had RSC< 2.5 , 2.5
    to 5.0, 5.0-7.5 and >7.5 me/L,respectively. About 43.6, 34.6, 20.6 and 1.1 percent of
    the samples recorded salinity < 1.0, 1-2,2-4 and > 4.0 dS/m, respectively (Table 8).
    EC and pH of waters ranged from 0.37 to 4.07 dS/m and 7.8 to 9.2, respectively.
    Sodium and chloride ions are the dominant cation and anion respectively.




                                                      21
               In Sardarshahar tehsil, 11.8, 6.5, 3.2, 32.3, 7.5,1.1 and 37.6 percent
    samples were found under good, marginally saline, saline, high SAR-saline ,
    marginally alkali, alkali and high alkali, respectively. 53.7,17.2,15.1 and 14.0 percent
    samples had RSC <2.5, 2.5-5.0, 5.0-7.5 and > 7.5 me/L, respectively . About 5.4,
    11.9, 57.9 and 24.8 percent of the samples showed salinity < 1.0, 1-2, 2-4 and > 4.0
    dS/m, respectively. The water is Na:Mg:Ca type with dominated chloride anion.

Table 7: Distribution (Percent) of water quality claqsses in Churu District
Water quality                       Sri Dungargarh(87)*                    Sardar Sahar(93)
   EC     SAR      RSC
1. Good                                      72.4                               11.8
   2      10       2.5
2. Marginally saline                         11.5                                   5.4
   2-4     10      2.5
3. Saline                                        1.1                                3.2
   4.0     10       2.5
4. High SAR Saline                               6.9                             33.3
   4.0      10       2.5
5. Marginally Alkali                             3.4                                7.5
    4.0     10       2.5
6. Alkali                                        --                                 1.1
     4.0    10 2.5-4.0
7. High Alkali                                   4.6                            37.6
  Variable 10      >4.0
*Figures in parenthesis indicated number of samples analysed.

Table : 8     Distribution (percent) of water samples in different ranges of EC and
         RSC in Churu District
RSC           .                       EC(dSm-1)                    .
(meL-1)       <1          1-2           2-3        3-4          >4            Total

Sridungargarh Tehsil

< 2.5           42.5        26.5          10.3          6.9          1.1     87.3
  2.5 - 5.0      1.1         3.5           2.3          1.1           --                  8.0
  5.0 - 7.5       --          2.3           --           --           --                  2.3
      >7.5        --          2.3           --           --           --                  2.3

Sardar Shahar Tehsil

<2.5            3.2           5.4          12.9 9.6             22.6     53.7
 2.5-5.0        2.2           3.2           7.5 4.3               - 17.2
 5.0-7.5         -            2.2           9.6 1.1              2.2      15.1
   >7.5          -            1.1          11.8 1.1               - 14.0



                                                 22
2.             Soil and Fertility Management for Crop Production :
               Soil amendments studies revealed that incorporation of Dhamasa (Tephrosia purpuria) and Subabool
(Lencaena eucocephala) to soil showed promising results in reducting the deleterious effect of continuous use of
saline water (8 dSm-1) on different crops viz; chickpea (11.85 and 11.10 q/ha), methi (20.16 and 19.02 q/ha) and
cluster bean (5.24 and 5.68 q/ha) (Table 9). Incorporation of organic amendments like Dhamasa (N=1.85%,
P=0.26%, K=1.7%, Ca=2.6% and O.C=0.36%) and subabool also showed improvement in soil chemical properties
(Table 10)
Table 9 :                 Effect of organic amendments on grain yield of various crops under saline water irrigation
             Treatments                                                     G r a i n                Y i e l d          ( q / ha )
                                 Chickpea                                           Methi                                                  Clusterbean
                                 84-85     85-86    86-87      Mean    88-89        89-90            Mean       84-85        85-86         86-87   87-88   8      Mean
     Control                     2.83       5.44    10.83       6.37   16.00        20.33            18.16      3.20         4.13          1.60    2.11    3.76   2.96
     FYM 10 t/ha                 4.58       6.75    13.48       8.27   14.00        22.00            18.00      5.40         5.53          2.27    2.83    4.70   4.15
     Subabbol (leaves) @         5.64       7.39    16.26      11.10   14.00        24.04            19.02      8.40         7.87          4.35    3.39    4.38   5.68
     5t/ha                       3.62       7.12    12.32       7.69   15.20        22.79            19.00      4.20         4.91          2.40    2.72    4.08   3.66
     N equal 5to Dhamasa         5.73      10.69    19.12      11.85   14.40        25.92            20.16      6.20         6.06          6.04    3.86    4.04   5.24
     Dhamasa @ 5t/ha             0.64       0.75     1.23       0.91   --            0.63            --         1.00         0.32          0.66    0.35    0.42   0.61
     SEm±                        1.73       2.29     3.79       2.80   NS            2.20            --         2.69         0.98          2.06    NS      NS     1.90
     SD at 5%



Table 10 :                Effect of organic amendments on pH, EC (dSm-1) and soluble sodium (meL-1)
                          of soil after clusterbean and chickpea
     Treatments                          1985-86                        1986-87                                         Mean
                                                         +                                       +
                             pH            EC       Na           pH          EC             Na               pH           EC          Na+
                                                         After clusterbean
Control                      8.1          0.98       6.2         8.4         0.47           3.5              8.3         0.73         4.9
FYM                          7.9          0.70       4.4         8.2         0.22           1.2              8.1         0.46         2.8
Subabool                     7.7          0.65       4.0         8.2         0.32           2.0              8.0         0.49         3.0
N       equal        to      7.8          0.80       4.2         8.3         0.41           3.0              8.1         0.60         3.6
Dhamasa
Dhamasa                      7.7          0.55       2.4         8.2         0.29           1.0              8.0         0.42         1.7
                                                           After chickpea
                                                         (Vyas et al,1989)
Control                    8.1           1.25      4.0         8.2      0.46           3.0                8.2           0.86         3.5
FYM                        8.0           1.10      3.0         8.2      0.30           1.8                8.1           0.70         2.4
Subabool                   8.0           0.98      3.4         8.2      0.26           1.6                8.1           0.62         2.5
N       equal        to    8.1           1.00      5.0         8.2      0.29           2.2                8.2           0.65         3.6
Dhamasa
Dhamasa                    7.8           0.90      4.2         8.1      0.30           2.0                8.0           0.60         3.1




                                                                                    23
B.     Use of gypsum and other amendments :
       Two years studies (1983 and 1984) showed that application of gypsum or pyrite at ½GR
gave maximum increase in the grain yield of wheat by over 10 q/ha and decreased the pH and
ESP of sodic soil as compared to the untreated control. Addition of FYM @10 t/ha also
independently increased the wheat yield significantly but the increase was not to the level of
chemical amendments. The gypsum or pyrite application proved significantly superior to
organics RSC of irrigation water used was 13.0 meL-1 (Table 11).
Table 11 :Effect of addition of Amendments on the grain yield of wheat and associated pH and
       EC changes
              Treatments                         Grain yield (q/ha)            Soil properties
                                           1983-84     1984-85     Pooled     pH(1:2)        ESP
Control                                     14.00        10.00        12.00     9.78         23.76
Gypsum @¼ GR                                22.00        13.50        17.75     9.24         21.00
Gypsum @¼ GR+FYM @10 t/ha                   22.85        13.75        18.30     9.18         20.53
Gypsum @½ GR                                27.76        16.75        22.25     9.19         21.00
Gypsum @½ GR+FYM @10 t/ha                   29.82        18.50        24.16     9.14         20.35
GM Dhaincha                                 20.28        12.67        16.97     9.22         20.44
FYM @10 t/ha                                20.66        13.75        17.20     9.19         21.75
Pyrites @½ GR (4 t/ha)                      27.32        17.00        22.16     9.22         20.40
Pyrites @½ GR+FYM 10 t/ha                   28.62        18.40        23.50     9.18         20.36
SEm±                                          1.62        1.10         1.55     0.12          0.32
CD at 5%                                      3.70        3.30         4.41     0.36          0.96


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




Table 12 : Effect of different levels of soil amendments on grain yield (q/ha)of wheat and
                   barley after dhaincha green manuring
                                            24
         Treatments                             Wheat                                       Barley
                                 1981-82        1982-83       Mean          1981-82         1982-83        Mean
 T1 - Gypsum 25% GR               39.90          39.4         39.65          42.58           41.25         41.91
 T2 - Gypsum 50% GR               38.93          40.9         39.91          42.26           48.62         45.44
 T3 - FYM (10 t/ha)               39.01          30.7         34.95          30.82           55.00         42.91
 T4 - FYM (20 t/ha)               33.82          39.9         36.86          36.34           41.00         38.67
 T5 - T1 + T2                     40.10          37.6         38.85          37.39           38.62         38.00
 T6 - T2 + T3                     40.64          40.6         40.62          38.93           55.37         47.15
 T7 - T1 + T4                     39.82          45.2         42.51          42.02           48.00         45.01
 T8 - T2 + T4                     34.55          40.7         37.62          39.18           53.25         46.21
 T9 - control                     34.06          36.7         35.38          26.76           37.00         31.88-
 SEm±                                2.10            2.54      2.33           3.02            5.05           -
 CD at 5%                            NS              6.56     6.29            7.30           13.63



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


       Efforts have been made to elucidate the possibility of utilizing organic materials
from some wild herbs and shurbs on salt affected soils by Gupta and Karan (1984 and
1985). They observed that Tephrosia purpuria a leguminous herb is most effective
among six organic materials tested because of its fast decomposing rate . Organic
materials increased exchangeable Ca++ + Mg++ and decreased exchangeable Na+, CaCO3,
EC and pH of alkali and saline alkali soil. Their results showed progressive reclaimation
                                                25
with increasing incorporation of organic material in form of wild herbs and shurbs.(Table
14)

Table 14 : Effect of adding different plant materials to soil with varying chemical
                  properties

     Plants                       Exchangeable        Exchangeable       CaCO3          EC          pH
                                  Ca+++Mg++           Na+                               (dS/m)
                                  (me/100g)           (me/100g)
T1   Tephroisa purpuria control
     @1.5%                        9.3                 15.0               2,7            1.7         8.5
                                  12.6                12.0               1.5            1.0         8.1
T2   Crotaleria burhia
     Control                       9.4                15.0               2.6            1.7         8.5
     @1.5%                        12.0                12.7               1.7            1.0         8.2
T3   Leptadenia pyrotechnica
     control                      9.6                 15.0               2.7            1.7         8.5
     @1.5%                        11.5                13.2               1.8            1.1         8.2
T4   Vernania cinerea
     control                      9.4                 15.0               2.8            1.7         8.5
     @1.5%                        11.8                13.0               2.0            1.1         8.2
T5   Aerva pseudotomentosa
     control                      9.4                 15.0               2.7            1.7         8.5
     @1.5%                        11.6                13.0               1.8            1.1         8.2
T6   Cassia auriculata
     control                      9.5                 5.0                2.7            1.7         8.5
     @1.5%                        12.2                12.4               1.9            1.0         8.1
     C.D.at 5%                    0.23                NS                 0.08           0.05        NS

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

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

Table 16: Effect of amendments on yield and net returns of wheat and pearl millet
                                                 26
      Treatments                           Yield ( t / hectare)                         Net return(Rs/ha)
                                   Wheat                    Pearlmillet
Control                            1.97                         0.43                          2382
FYM @25t/ha                        2.40                         0.60                          2180
Gypsum@25% GR                      2.41                         0.76                          3410
Gypsum @50%GR                      2.77                         0.84                          4072
Pyrite@25%GR                       1.19                         0.73                          2925
Pyrite@50%GR                       2.47                         0.82                          3330
CD at 5%                           0.17                         0.09

       Application of organic and inorganic amendments increased grain yield of wheat.
Application of gypsum @ 50 % GR proved to be the best treatment followed by pyrite @
50% GR with respect to produce grain yield of wheat during both the years. Uptake of
nitrogen and phosphorus increased with the reclamation of salt affected soils . Maximum
uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus was recorded with gypsum @ 50% GR followed by
pyrite @ 50% GR(Keshwa and Singh,1988) ESP and pHs values of soil decreased due to
application of amendments. On the basis of general effect of various amendments in
reclaiming the salt affected soils these could be arranged in order of effectiveness:
gypsum 50%GR> pyrite 50%GR>gypsum 25%GR>FYM 25t/ha>pyrite 25%GR>control
(Table 17).

Table 17: Effect of amendments on soil characteristics and yield of wheat
Treatments             ECe(dS/m)              pHs             ESP             Yield(q/ha)           Nutrient
                                                                                                 uptake(kg/ha)
                       A*      B         A            B      A        B       A         B        N          P
Control               4.75    5.59      9.3          9.2   30.0     28.9    18.57     20.73    65.3       12.5
FYM @ 25t/ha)         4.53    5.35      8.9          8.9   25.0     23.7    23.09     24.96    73.3       16.3
Gypsum @ 25% GR       4.51    5.30      8.8          8.9   23.4     22.9    23.65     24.46    73.0       16.1
Gypsum @ 50%GR        4.55    5.20      8.7          8.8   21.3     20.4    27.11     28.33    79.5       19.3
Pyrites @ 25% GR      4.56    5.26      8.9          8.9   24.4     24.3    20.97     22.86    69.6       15.5
Pyrites @ 50%GR       4.55    5.28      8.8          8.9   23.4     22.7    24.34     25.05    73.9       16.9
CD at 5%              NS      NS       0.35         0.23    2.5      1.8     2.27      2.49     6.0        1.6
A :1983-84      B : 1984-85                                   (Keshwa & singh, 1988)


Mustard :
       Three years study revealed that application of gypsum @ ½ GR (5t/ha) with NP
gave significantly higher grain yield and oil content of mustard in soil irrigated with high
RSC water as compared to control (without amendments). Pyrite was found superior to
gypsum (Table 18).




Table 18 : Effect of gypsum and pyrites on grain yield and oil content of mustard.
Treatments                                Grain yield (q/ha)                         Oil content (%)
                                   1985-86    1986-87      1987-88         1985-86      1986-87     1987-88
T1 - Control                         7.16        5.05         7.52         34.3         28.0        33.6
T2 - N + P (60+30)                   9.13        9.07        10.17         37.4         33.9        36.6
T3 - T2 + Gypsum @ 5t/ha            11.13       13.05        14.04         38.0         36.5        40.1
T4 - T2 + Pyrite @ 4t/ha            10.63       10.92        11.17         38.3         36.2        39.3
                                                     27
CD at 5%                           0.98      2.89        1.87       2.2         2.4     1.7
(Water pH 8.7, EC 2.2 dS/m, SAR-19, RSC-10.9 me/l)
        Somani and saxena (1981a) reported that sulphur takes a period of 2-3 months for
its oxidation and for coming in chemical equilibrium comparable to that of gypsum. This
suggest that the slowness of sulphur as an alkali ameliorant could be compensated by
applying it in advance to permit its oxidation. This led Somani (1980) and Somani and
Saxena (1982) to record better ameliorating influence of sulphur as compared to gypsum.
The ameliorating efficiency of sulphur is considerably improved if used in conjuction
with organic material (Table 19) possibly because organic matter hastens the activity of
heterotropic sulphur oxidizers in soil besides improving soil physical properties (Somani
and Saxena, 1981b)
Table 19 : Effect of organic materials and inorganic amendments on some physicasl and
chemical properties of calcareous saline alkali soil and yield of wheat.
Treatments            pH    EC(dS/m)      Organic     ESP    Biological   Structural   Wheat
                                          Carbon             Index        Index        yield
                                          (%)                                          (q/ha)
Control              9.30   12.6          0.18        26.8   31.5         7.3          6.01

Gypsum               8.95   10.9          0.21        21.2   37.7         12.1         11.65
Sulphur              8.80   10.1          0.27        19.5   39.3         15.0         13.21
FYM                  9.20   12.2          0.31        24.9   35.1         8.8          8.94
FYM + Gypsum         8.82   10.1          0.39        19.2   40.3         13.8         18.74
FYM + Sulphur        8.70   8.2           0.45        17.7   45.8         16.1         20.86
Dhaincha (DA)        8.85   10.4          0.28        21.4   37.2         12.5         11.45
DA + Gypsum          8.70   9.8           0.30        16.3   45.9         17.9         21.13
DA+ Sulphur          8.40   6.8           0.33        13.8   51.1         23.2         24.13
Poultry Manure(PM)   9.20   11.8          0.30        24.9   34.7         9.6          8.00
PM + Gypsum          8.75   10.6          0.37        18.4   39.2         15.2         16.90
PM + Sulphur         8.60   7.9           0.41        15.7   44.6         17.4         18.69
Rice husk (RH)       9.15   11.7          0.30        24.7   34.1         9.5          7.26
RH + Gypsum          8.80   9.9           0.32        16.7   38.9         14.2         15.05
RH + Sulphur         8.65   7.3           0.38        16.2   43.8         19.5         17.0
CD at 5%             0.20   1.5           0.02        2.6    3.8          0.96         1.46

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




                                                 28
Table 20 :Effect of soil amendments and residual on grain yield (q/ha) of wheat
        Treatments                          Grain yield                   Residual effect
                                1986-87          1987-88     Mean            1988-89
T1 - control                     25.00             3.00      14.00             6.00
T2 - Gypsum 50% GR               27.00            24.50      25.75            17.65
T3 - Gypsum 75% GR               27.00            33.93      30.46            15.30
T4 - FYM 10 t/ha                 25.50             4.43      14.96             7.75
T5 - FYM 20 t/ha                 26.00             1.43      13.71             8.00
T6 - T2 + T4                     27.50            27.25      27.37            14.75
T7 - T3 + T4                     34.20            33.25      33.72            16.87
T8 - T2 + T5                     30.00            24.12      27.06            12.68
T9 - T3 + T5                     35.70            31.62      33.66            17.18
SEm±                               1.70            3.64        --              2.14
CD at 5%                           4.15            7.52        --              5.35

Pearlmillet
        Pearlmillet yield increased tremendously with addition of ½ GR gypsum
alongwith FYM as compared to FYM and gypsum alone in both the years when the crop
was irrigated with water having high RSC of 13 meL-1. The yields during 1988-89 is less
as compared to 1986-87 on account of lodging of crop at tasselling stage due to
strong wind storm with rain (Table 21).

Wheat

       Wheat yield significantly increased with gypsum alone or combination with
FYM as compared to control or FYM alone, when the crop was irrigated with high
RSC (13 meL-1) water (Table 22). The residual effect on soil revealed that
addition of FYM and gypsum reduced the pH of the soil.(Singhania et.al ,1991)
They concluded that a soil deteriorated with continuous use of high RSC water,
gypsum can be successfully used. Since there is fast decrease in the residual
effect as compared to first year , application of gypsum only once is not enough
for long effect and certain amount of gypsum need to be added each year or
once in two years to maintain the productivity of soil.(Table 23).




Table 22 :     Effect of soil amendments on yield (q/ha) of pearlmillet and wheat


                                            29
     Treatments                             Prealmillet                                                  Wheat grain
                               1986-87                      1988-89                 1986-87            1987-88         1988-89      Mean
                            Grain   Straw         Grain                Straw
 T1 - control                3.36   19.16          0.45                 10.0              25.0           3.0             6.0            11.3
 T2 -Gypsum 50% GR           3.51   24.33          0.19                 22.5              27.0          24.5            17.7            23.1
 T3 -Gypsum 75% GR           4.26   27.16          0.17                 30.0              27.0          33.9            15.3            25.4
 T4 - FYM 10 t/ha            5.56   30.41          0.21                 12.5              25.5           4.4             7.8            12.6
 T5 - FYM 20 t/ha            4.71   32.00          0.02                 13.8              26.0           1.4             8.0            11.8
 T6 - T2 + T4                3.76   32.41          1.02                 33.8              27.5          27.3            14.8            23.2
 T7 - T3 + T4                5.90   37.30          1.84                 41.3              34.2          34.3            16.9            28.5
 T8 - T2 + T5                6.00   38.50          1.60                 35.0              30.0          24.1            12.7            22.3
 T9 - T3 + T5                7.48   43.30          1.24                 48.8              35.7          31.6            17.2            28.2
 SEm±                        0.10       0.52           --                   --             1.4           3.6             2.1             --
 CD at 5%                    0.31       1.54           --                   --             4.2           7.5             5.4             --



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




                                                                 30
3.Evaluation of suitable cropping pattern for salt affected soils
         Experiments conducted during 1984-1989 to find out suitable crop rotation for
salt affected soils revealed that Dhaincha-wheat/ barley rotation gave maximum yield and
returns (Table 24). Incorporation of dhaincha decreased the pH of soil.
Table 24 :Suitablity of crop rotation under salt affected soil Grain yield (q/ha) and Gross
          returns (Rs/ha)
         Rotations                         Grain        yield                          Gross    money returns
                        84-85      85-86      86-87         87-88      88-89   Mean     84-85     85-86   86-87   87-88


 T1 Fallow-Wheat        26.07      22.34      14.85         20.57      27.16   22.19    4016      8029    4689    5583
 T2 Daincha-Wheat       22.58      27.36      27.48         29.32      38.41   29.03    5499      9087    7688    7174
 T3 Fallow-Barley       22.65      38.46      31.32         29.32      20.41   28.43    3791      9094    6339    6525
 T4 Dhaincha-Barley     25.75      48.61      40.53         47.48      26.91   37.85    4562     11285    8088    9798
 T5 Fallow-Mustard      10.58       8.61         6.93           9.32    6.25    8.33    4016      3012    4781    4058
 T6 Dhaincha-Mustard    14.25      11.38      12.07         15.16       7.50   12.07    5499      3983    7846    6591
 CD at 5%                                                                               1124      2030    2182    2270


4.Management of poor quality ground water for crop production :
(A) Agronomical aspects :
    1. Effect of saline water irrigation at different stages :
       An experiment was conducted in 1985-86, 86-87 and 87-88 with three salinity
       levels (EC=2, 4 & 6 dSm-1) and four growth stages (germination, flower
       initiation, pod formation and all above) on guar in kharif and gram (1985-86) and
       fenugreak (1986-87 and 1987-88) crops in rabi. The findings are as follows

Cluster bean :
       The result showed that there was practically no effect of salinity of irrigation
water and the growth stages on yield of clusterbean in all the three years. Grain and
straw yields decreased if saline water is applied at all the growth stages (Table 25).

Gram :
       Grain yield of gram decreased with increasing salinity of water and the yield was
low when saline water was applied in every irrigation, one irrigation with saline water at
any stage had no effect on grain yield of gram.
Fenugreek :
       There was no effect of EC of irrigation water on grain yield of fenugreek and it
was lowest when saline water was applied at all the stages of growth.




                                            31
Table 25 :Effect of saline water irrigation and different stages of growth on grain yield (q/ha) and soil
         properties
        Treatments                    Clusterbeean                  Gram yield                Fenugreek
                                   Mean of three years                                     Mean of two years
                             Yield         pH           EC                           Grain        pH           EC
                     -1
EC of water (dS m )
2                            4.57         7.98          0.40          21.39          23.79       7.85         0.49
4                            4.73         8.10          0.35          19.29          24.87       7.93         0.58
6                            4.21         8.02          0.37           8.80          23.81       8.07         0.61
SEm±                         0.53                                      0.35           1.05
CD at 5%                      NS                                       1.02           NS
Growth Stages
Germination                  4.70         7.93          0.30          17.60          25.13       7.84         0.44
Flower initiation            4.50         7.98          0.29          17.68          24.07       8.24         0.50
Pod formation                4.70         8.04          0.34          18.56          24.50       8.03         0.51
All the above                4.29         8.05          0.37           8.70          22.72       7.92         0.64
SEm±                         0.51                                      0.40           1.20
CD at 5%                      NS                                       1.20           NS
        An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of poor quality waters (in
respect of EC and SAR) on wheat. The result showed that wheat yield significantly
decreased with increasing salinity of water from 8 to 12 dSm-1, whereas there was no
effect of SAR even upto 80 on crop yields indicating resistance of crop to higher sodicity.
Increasing EC and SAR levels increased EC of soil (Table 26).
Table 26 :Effect of EC and SAR of irrigation water on yield of wheat and                          soil properties
    Treatments                     Grain yield (q/ha)                               Soil properties
                          1985-86        1986-87          Mean                pH                        EC
Salinity levels                                                       0-15         15-30       0-15          15-30
            -1
E1 8 dSm                   29.92          28.37           29.15        8.12        8.45        0.91          1.11
E2 12 dSm-1                26.24          23.37           24.81        8.25        8.60        1.00          1.10
CD at 5%                    2.96            3.81               --
SAR levels
S1 2                       29.60          29.78           29.69        8.22        8.75        0.94          1.08
S2 40                      28.48          26.02           27.25        8.03        8.56        1.21          1.15
S3 60                      27.59          25.28           26.44        8.15        8.81        1.21          1.15
S4 80                      26.72          22.00           24.36        8.15        8.81        1.53          1.24
CD at 5%                    NS              NS                 --
        Studies on effect of different levels of ECiw and adj SAR on the properties of
different soils indicated that increase in the level of adj. SAR in irrigation water increased
                                                          32
ECe, pH and SAR of soil (Table 27). The adverse effect of EC and Adj. SAR was more
in fine textured , slowly permeable clay soil but it was less on the coarse textured highly
permeable loamy sand soil..
Table :27 Average effect of ECiw, Adj. SARiw and soil type of ECe (dS/m) SAR & pH
          of soil
Treatments             ECe (dS/m)                SAR                  pH

ECiw (dS/m)

 2.0                   2.0                       20.8                 8.7
 4.0                   3.6                       21.7                 8.6
 6.0                   6.0                       22.4                 8.5
SEm+                   0.08                      0.31                 0.1
CD at 5%               0.27                      0.87                 NS

Adj. SAR
10                     3.4                       10.7                 8.4
20                     3.6                       15.2                 8.5
30                     3.9                       21.6                 8.6
40                     4.2                       25.2                 8.6
50                     4.4                       35.6                 8.8
SEm+                   0.10                      0.40                 0.07
CD at 5%               0.28                      1.12                 0.20
Soil types
loamy sand             2.7                       22.7                 8.7
Loamy                  4.0                       21.4                 8.5
Clay                   4.9                       20.8                 8.6
Sem+                   0.08                      0.31                 0.1
CD at 5%               0.27                      0.87                 NS

                                                                    (Pathan et al,1991)


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




Table 28: Soil reaction, salinity, SAR, SSP, CEC and ESP of soils
    Soil         pH           EC(dS/m)     SAR           SSP          CEC            ESP

                                            33
 depth(Cm)                                                                         (me/100g)
    0-24            8.5              1.0-7.3        9.8-43.9      66.3-95.2          2.0-5.9          13.7-34.8
                                      (3.8)          (26.9)        (87.8)             (4.2)            (23.8)
   24-48            8.8              1.8-5.6        11.9-47.0     80.8-95.9         2.7-10.0          13.8-35.0
                                      (3.2)          (29.5)        (91.2)             (6.3)            (24.1)
   48.72            8.7              1.3-6.0        12.4-60.7     85.4-98.8          3.9-9.5          14.9-33.9
                                      (3.4)          (37.3)        (92.7)             (6.9)            (24.0)
   72.96            8.6              2.0-6.8        11.3-57.0     74.1-96.5          2.5-9.0          11.6-42.2
                                      (3.7)          (31.3)        (90.2)             (5.8)            (24.9)
  96-120            8.6              2.0-8.6        18.7-70.0     73.1-98.1          1.8-9.0          16.3-42.2
                                      (4.2)          (39.5)        (88.1)             (5.3)            (26.3)

*Figures in parentheses are average values.

Table 29: Relationship between irrigation water and soil properties
Parameters                                                    DEPTH (Cm)
                            0-24                24-48            48-72          72-96             96-120
Eciw X Ece soil           +0.915*              +0.839           +0.770         +0.881*            +0.895*
SAR X ESP Soil             +0.557              +0.805           +0.736          +0.604            +0.566
SARiw X SARe              +0.983**             0.987**          +0.670         +0.985**           +0.806
SSPiw X ESP                +0.808              +0.822*          +0.788          +0.791            +0.706

*,** Significant at 5 % and 1% respectively.

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

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



Table 31:         Effect of slow release nitrogeneous fertilizers and levels of saline water on
                          yield and N uptake of wheat

                                                         34
  Treatments                            Yield (kg/ha)                            N uptake(kg/ha)*
                            Grain                          Straw
                  1981-82           1982-83      1981-82           1982-83      Grain        Straw
Urea               25.90             25.71        36.99             36.71       50.3          15.9
Urea split         27.01             27.34        38.40             39.64       53.6          16.9
NCU                29.77             28.70        42.76             41.91       59.9          19.2
SCU                30.11             29.24        42.45             41.75       62.0          19.5
Sem+                25                19            59                36        0.55          0.34
CD at 5%            72                54           170               104        1.58          0.98
ECiw (dS/m)
2                   31.38            30.77         43.18            46.15       66.3            21.5
6                   30.28            30.04         41.00            40.59       63.4            19.8
10                  27.73            27.22         39.49            39.50       53.3            16.5
14                  33.73            22.99         36.84            36.85       43.0            14.0
LSD(P=0.5%)          158              176           188              179         4.8            1.75

*Average for two years

       The experiments conducted on Barley and wheat for 4-6 years with two
levels of irrigation at IW/CPE ratio 1.0 and 1.15 and four levels of salinity (viz.
BAW,ECiw 1,8 and 12 dS/m) revealed that increasing depth of irrigation IW/CPE
1.0 to 1.15 enhanced the wheat crop yield upto moderate salinity (8 dS/m)
compared to non saline water. While in barley crop increased IW/CPE was not
found useful (Table 32)

Table 32 : Wheat and Barley yield with varying IW/CPE ratio under saline irrigation
IW/CPE ratio                                            Eciw (dS/m)
                            Baw                    4                    8                  12
                                               Fallow wheat (Mean of 6 years)
1.0                         24.1                 22.7                 23.7                22.3
1.15                        25.8                 25.8                 25.5                22.6
                                               fallow barley(mean of 6 years)
1.0                         50.8                 42.3                 44.4                43.1
1.15                        49.7                 44.4                 41.1                41.0




Saline water irrigation through basin and pitcher irrigation
        Studies conducted on pitcher and conventional method of irrigation revealed that
the maximum measn vegetable yield (9306 kg/ha) was recorded with normal water
pitcher irrigation (Table 33). Salinity of water reduced the yield slightly under both the
method of irrigation . Pitcher irrigation with normal water was found to be significantly
superior over rest of the treatments in first year but it was significantly inferior to check
basin irrigation in second year. Pitcher irrigation with saline water was also significantly
superior to check basin method in first year while a reverse trend was observed in the
second year of study, this might be due to reduced rate of water suction as a consequence
of salt deposition on the pitcher surface in the form of insoluble compounds. Average
conjunctive use of water in check basin method was 2800 mm as compared to 635 mm in
pitcher irrigation indicating a saving of about 80% water (Singh et al.,1987).


                                                  35
Table 33: Vegetable yield and economics of knol khol cultivation on sandy soils as affected by method of
          irrigation
Treatments                                 Vegetabke yield (q/ha)           Net returns (Rs/ha)
                                           1985-86 1986-87 Mean             1985-86 1986-87       Mean
I1 -Normal water                           7340      6656       6998        7526       6460       6993
I2 -Check basin with saline water          7320      5920       6620        7496       5356       6426
I3 -Pitcher method with normal water       14720     3893       9306        20407      3935       12021
i4 -Pitcher method with saline water       10940     3080       7010        14337      2616       8526
LSD at 5%                                  1904      2636       --          --         --         --

B-. Ionic composition:

Pearlmillet :

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




Table 34 :Response of pearlmillet and wheat under chloride dominated irrigation water
to              phosphorus
    Treatments                                     Grain     y i e l d (q/ha)

                                                   36
                                          Pearlmillet                                          Wheat
                             1987-88         1988-89           Mean          1987-88           1988-89          Mean
Salinity levels
S1 (control)                   6.61           10.80            8.71           21.86             19.49           20.68
           -1
S2 - 8 dSm                     6.04            8.64            7.34           20.10             17.91           19.00
           -1
S3 -12 dSm                     6.25            7.45            6.85           18.40             16.96           17.68
CD at 5%                       NS              2.19             --             NS                1.21             --
Ratio of anions
C1 (70 : 30)                   6.33            9.05            7.69           19.29             16.84           18.07
C2 (90 : 10)                   6.38            8.87            7.63           21.00             19.39           19.54
CD at 5%                       NS              NS               --             NS                NS               --
Levels of phosphorus
P1 (control)                   5.82            9.02            7.42           18.98             19.15           19.07
P2 100% R.D.                   6.89            9.05            7.97           20.45             17.00           18.73
P3 150% R.D.                   6.18            8.82            7.50           21.02             18.21           19.62
CD at 5%                       NS              NS               --             NS                1.40             --

          *R.D. - Recommended dose
        Studies conducted with five varieties of green gram to evaluate the specific anion
effect and varietal difference in salt tolerance revealed that green gram could tolerate
sodium salt upto 5 me/L. The general order of specific anion effect at low level of salinity
(5-10 me/L) was HCO3’ > CO3”>NO3’>Cl’>SO4”. In general SO4” is least toxic, CO3”
and HCO3’ are most toxic and chloride & NO3’ are intermediate. Hybrid-45 & GC-140
were most senstive to carbonate. GC-139 was maximum tolerant to sulphate(Table 35).
    Table 35 : Effect of different anions and increasing salt concentration on the
               germination (%) of some varities of green gram
  Salts              Hybrid-45          Krishna-11             GC-153                 GC-140                 GC-139
                5       10     20     5     10    20      5      10     20      5       10     20       5      10      20
Na2CO3          54      45     20     57    47    20      75     70     30      47      32     21       58     54      35
NaCl            70      48     33     88    72    52      68     56     42      88      67     52       95     82      59
Na2SO4          80      65     38     91    79    45      84     61     50      68      51     38       95     84      72
NaHCO3          45      37     24     38    27    22      55     45     38     `42      30     23       53     45      39
NaNO3           78      63     31     66    54    49      67     50     40      72      54     41       78     63      58
LSD 5%                  7.5                 9.1                 8.3                    7.7                    8.2
                                                           (Somani et al,1989)


        Experiments were conducted to establish saline water tolerance of crops. The
tolerance limits are given below and same have been recommended to the farmers.

Table 36: Salt tolerence of crop varieties
Crop                      Variety                     Eciw (dS/m)             Yield(q/ha)                 Year
Wheat                     K.Sona                          12                     21.1                    1981-83

                                                          37
Barley                 RD-31                        12                 33.5              1981-83
Guar                   Durgapura safed               6                  4.0              1981-83
Methi                  Nagauri local                 6                  9.6              1980-83
Mustard                T-59                         10                 17.0              1980-83
Spinach                Jobner green                  6                 560               1984-87
Chillies(green)        Local                         6                 83.8              1985-87
Corriander             UD-41                         8                 10.4              1986-87


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

Screening of elite varieties/genotypes of different crops for cultivation under irrigation
with poor quality waters :

       Screening programme to identify the suitable crop cultivars for cultivation
under irrigation with poor quality waters was carried out. The crop wise results
are given in table 38.

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




                                           39
Wheat :
        Out of ten varieties of wheat tested with irrigation water having EC 2.5 to 12.5
dSm-1 during rabi 1993-94, the cultivars WH-157, WH-542 and Raj-3077 proved
significatly better than others at ECiw 2.5 dSm-1. At ECiw 5.0 dSm-1, WH-452
proved best. The yield of K-65 did not decrease significatly upto ECiw 10.0 dSm-1,
showing its tolerance to high salinity. At 10.0 dSm-1 Raj-3077 and K-65 were found
better than others.
Mustard :
        Ten genotypes of mustard were tested under irrigation with poor quality waters
having EC 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1 during rabi seasons of 1994-95 to 1996-97. Three years’
studies revealed that there was 2.1, 19.6, 32.3 and 48.1 per cent reduction in grain yield
of mustard at ECiw of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 dSm-1, respectively as compared to BAW
(EC 0.25 dSm-1). It was observed that at ECiw 2.5 to 7.5 dSm-1 the genotypes RBT-1,
RBT-2 and RBT-62 (B. tournifortie) gave significatly higher yield than others. At ECiw
10.0 dSm-1 RBT-1 and RBT-2 were found better than others. Among mustard varieties
(B. juncea) Kranti was found better than others.
Cumin :
         Tolerance studies carried out on cumin for three years’ (1994-95 to 1996-97)
revealed that there was seccessive reduction in grain yield of cumin as ECiw increased
from 0.25 to 10.0 dSm-1. At EC 2.5 dSm-1 genotypes UC-217, UC-209 and RZ-19 gave
higher yields than others whereas at ECiw of 5.0 to 7.5 dSm-1 RZ-19 gave maximum
yield followed by UC-208. RZ-19 and UC-208 were found suitable for saline water
irrigation.
Table 38:ffect of saline water on the yield (q/ha) of genotypes of different crops.
   Genotypes/varieties                                ECiw (dS m-1)
                            0.25         2.5         5.0           7.5    10.0        Mean
                              Pearlmillet (Average of 1995 & 96)
RHB - 30                    14.9        15.4         13.0          13.1    9.0        13.0
RHB - 90                    21.4        20.9         19.5          18.6   14.3        18.5
MH - 425                    18.7        16.8         14.1          12.1   10.4        14.4
HHB - 67                    18.0        17.4         16.4          13.3   11.4        15.3
HHB - 60                    21.3        21.3         19.5          17.7   13.9        18.6
MH - 501                    14.0        13.3         11.5          10.0    8.2        11.3
MH - 49                     19.7        19.1         17.3          14.9   13.5        16.9
MP - 234                    19.4        17.8         17.2          13.8   12.9        14.8
Eknath Hyrid                17.6        17.4         16.2          14.3   11.5        15.3
WCC - 75                    14.7        13.9         11.6           9.9    9.6        11.6
Mean                        17.9        17.3         15.6          13.4   11.2         --
CD at 5%                     3.3         --           --            --     --          --




                                               40
                         Guar (Average of 1994 & 95)
Durgapura Safed    --           16.8         15.0       11.5    8.0   12.8
2470 - 12          --           17.7         13.0       12.1    7.1   12.5
GAUG - 29          --           18.8         12.7        9.1    7.9   12.1
Durga Jai          --           14.3         10.5        7.4    7.5    9.9
RGC - 936          --           16.2         12.0       11.6    6.7   11.6
RGC - 471          --           13.4         12.7        8.9    7.2   10.2
GAUG - 34          --           17.2         17.6        9.0    8.8   13.1
RGC - 978          --           20.3         16.8       12.3   11.2   15.1
HG - 75            --           16.7         14.9       12.6    8.7   13.2
Suvidha            --           11.6         12.7       10.0    5.7   10.0
Mean               --           16.3         13.8       10.8    7.9    --
CD at 5%                         1.77
                        Groundnut (Average 1995 & 96)
TG - 26            9.9           9.0          7.1       5.2    3.2    6.9
JL - 24            9.5           8.9          7.7       5.9    3.7    7.1
TMV - 10          10.3           9.8          7.5       5.5    3.8    7.4
TAG - 24           8.2           7.9          6.5       5.4    3.5    6.3
K-3               12.3          10.1         10.0       6.8    3.8    8.7
M - 13             8.1           7.2          6.8       4.2    2.3    5.7
Somnath            7.8           7.7          6.6       5.2    2.8    6.0
SB - XI           12.3          11.5          9.2       7.4    4.9    9.1
ICGS - 41          9.3           8.6          7.5       4.9    2.5    6.6
PG - 1            10.8           9.1          7.2       5.4    3.6    7.3
Mean               9.9           9.0          7.6       5.6    3.4     --
CD at 5%           1.37




                                        41
   Genotypes/varieties                             ECiw (dS m-1)
                         0.25         2.5          5.0         7.5    10.0   Mean
                                Wheat (Average 1995 & 96)
HD - 2327                  --         13.4        13.4          7.8    5.8   10.1
RAJ - 1555                 --         15.4        14.7         15.2    5.2   12.6
WH - 542                   --         22.7        23.5         14.1   13.3   18.4
WH - 157                   --         24.1        15.6         17.4   14.0   17.8
WL - 711                   --         14.9        13.7         13.8    9.4   13.0
RAJ - 2184                 --         16.3        17.6         10.1   11.5   13.9
KRL1 - 4                   --         20.6        17.0         14.8   12.7   16.3
RAJ - 3077                 --         24.0        17.9         13.4   17.5   18.2
K - 65                     --         17.3        16.4         15.6   16.1   16.4
HD - 2285                  --         15.8        14.0         13.9    7.8   12.9
Mean                       --         18.4        16.4         13.6   11.4    --
CD at 5%                   --          2.4
                         Mustard (Average of 1994-95 to 1996-97)
Pusa bold                10.4         10.7         9.5          8.5    5.7    9.0
PCR - 7                  13.6         12.7        11.8          8.2    7.1   10.7
T - 59                   12.6         11.8        10.2          9.2    7.9   10.3
RBT - 1                  27.6         25.6        21.1         17.5   14.1   21.1
RBT - 2                  25.2         25.1        20.9         18.0   14.4   20.7
RBT - 61                 24.8         25.6        19.7         17.0   12.9   20.0
BIO - 902                13.0         11.5         9.5          8.6    7.0    9.9
Kranti                   16.6         17.1        14.0         10.8    8.5   13.4
RBT - 62                 23.8         24.0        18.7         16.5   12.2   19.1
RH - 30                  12.8         12.2         9.6          7.9    6.9    9.9
Mean                     18.0         17.6        14.5         12.2    9.7    --
CD at 5%                  2.6
                          Cumin (Average (1994-95 & 1996-97)
UC - 198                  2.6         2.3          1.9         1.6    1.1    1.9
UC - 216                  3.6         3.0          2.4         2.4    1.8    2.5
UC - 220                  3.7         3.0          2.4         2.2    1.3    2.5
UC - 89                   2.8         2.3          2.2         1.7    1.4    2.1
UC - 208                  3.8         3.3          2.8         2.5    2.0    2.9
UC - 218                  2.7         2.4          2.1         1.4    1.1    1.9
UC - 217                  3.7         3.3          2.3         1.9    1.7    2.6
UC - 209                  2.8         3.2          2.2         1.8    1.3    2.3
RS - 1                    3.6         2.8          2.6         2.5    1.6    2.6
RZ - 19                   3.9         3.2          3.2         2.6    1.8    2.9


                                             42
Mean       3.3   2.9        2.3   2.0   1.5   --
CD at 5%   0.5




                       43
5.Performance of crops on saline soils/irrigation with poor quality waters:
(a) Germination Studies :

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

       (b) Growth Studies :

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




                                           44
Table 39 : ‘r’ values between EC and yields of various crops
  Crop        Yield         ‘r’     Values of EC (dSm-1)   References
                                    for reduction
                                     25%            50%
Cowpea     Total DM     -0.83**     1.03         1.75      Lal and Singhania(1994)
Moong      Total DM     -0.51**     0.38         0.52      Lal and Singhania (1994)
Gram       Grain        -0.67**     0.33         0.73      Singhania et.al. (1994)
           Straw        -0.71**     0.34         0.77
Guar       Grain        -0.49**     1.00         1.81
           Straw        -0.56**     1.12         2.14
Cumin      Grain        -0.76**     0.54         0.83      Verma and Lal (1996)
           Straw        -0.79**     0.57         0.93
Sesame     Grain        -0.46*      0.79         1.11      Lal and Verma (1997)
           Straw        -0.43*      0.66         1.20



Performance of different crop varieties under saline and high RSC waters:

Pearlmillet :
        Two years study during 1989 and 1990 in sodic soil (pH 9.2, EC 0.65 dS/m)
irrigated with high RSC water (8.2 me/l) at farmer’s field revealed that variety MH-169
and RCB-2 gave higher yield (23.73 and 22.07 q/ha) as compared to MH-179 , WCC-75
and MH-36.

Barley
       Variety BL-2 gave significantly higher yield (33.88 q/ha) as compared to RD-
1635, RD-2182, RD-2259 and RD-2423.

Wheat :
     Variety Raj.1972 and Raj .3077 gave significantly higher yield than Lok-1 and
   Kh-65 (Table 40).




                                            45
Table 40 : Performance of different varieties of crops under high RSC water

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


Performance of crops/ varieties under saline sodic condition :
       Studies on the performence of different varieties of wheat and barley under saline
sodic condition(ECe 8.86 and ESP 30.78 ) revealed that Variety Kh-65 of wheat and RS-
6, RS-17 and BL-2 of barley performed better under saline sodic soils as compared to
other varieties (Table 41).

Table 41: Performence of different varities of wheat and barley under saline sodic
          condition
WHEAT                                              BARLEY
Varieties                Grain yield               Varieties               Grain yield
Kh-65                    23.77                     RS-6                    30.77
Raj-2996                 14.88                     RS-17                   26.44
Raj.2934                 11.33                     BL-2                    11.99
Raj 3062                 11.22                     Karan-19                6.88
Raj.3027                 11.11                     Karan-15                6.66
Raj.3030                 11.88
CD at 5%                 2.16                      CD at 5%                2.91


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




                                              46
Table 42 :Effect of salinity of irrigation water on fresh yield of different grasses and their
                  effect on soil properties
     Treatments                    Yield (q/ha)                  Mean                 Soil properties
                       86-87     87-88    88-89      89-90                     pH2       EC2(dSm-1)
ECiw (dSm-1)
 2                       507.9    117.3     278.0     191.7      273.7         9.96            0.44
12                       457.9    108.6     282.9     186.2      258.9         9.85            0.62
CD at 5%                  NS        3.4      NS        NS         NS            --                 --
Grasses
Paragrass                350.7     82.1      99.5     705.6      309.5         9.58            0.50
Sevan grass                --      26.6      58.3     112.2       65.7         9.87            0.50
Guttan panic             189.5     41.7      31.6      65.6       82.1         9.77            0.52
Rhodes grass             814.1    250.6     243.4     353.1      415.3         9.95            0.55
Blue panic               594.1    163.2     223.2     343.5      331.0         9.95            0.55
CD at 5%                 402.2     20.0      62.4    261.5         --           --                 --


Agricultural Engineering aspect of salinity control :Development of suction irrigation :
The suction irrigation system developed by the centre has given very good results and it
can be adopted to cultivate vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants, flowers etc. in salt
affected soils with or without saline water irrigation. (Yadav, 1986). Data in table 43
showed that suction irrigation system increased the vegetable yield of bottlegourd,
brinjal, cabbage, cauliflower, knolkhol and water melon by 4.72, 11.11, 47.05, 45.91,
68.57 and 40.92 per cent over punched hole dripper system respectively(Yadav, 1983).
Clay drip system of irrigation is more eight times more economical than any drip system
developed so far.

Table 43 :Yields of crops under different methods of irrigation
               Vegetable crop                                    Yield (q/ha)
                                          Clay drip system                    Punched hole dripper
                                           Water applied Yield          Water applied         Yield
                                          (cm)          (q/ha)          (cm)                (q/ha)
Bottle gourd                              8.0           310             19.0                 296
Brinjal                                   4.0           250             9.6                  225
Cabbage                                   5.3           500             13.3                 340
Cauliflower                               4.6          518              11.6                 344
Knol-khol                                 3.9           590             10.1                 350
Watermelon                                72.3          730             84.5                 518




                                                47
            Evaluation of quantity of irrigation water on different vegetables with suction
      method of irrigation in light texture of soil :
               During 1988-89 a study was carried out for evaluation of the effect of quality of
      irrigation water on different vegetables with suction and pitcher method of irrigation.
              The water requirment of all the vegetables was lower in the plots irrigated by
      suction than in pitcher (Table 44). By adopting suction method of irrigation, about 33.3
      to 48.4 per cent of irrigation water may be saved. It was observed that in the suction
      method, the crop yield was about 3.8 to 4.4% more at 2 dSm-1 and 3.2 to 7.0% at 12 dSm-
      1
        besides saving in water.
             The suction irrigation was found better than the pitcher irrigarion as far as water
      saving and yield of the vegetables were concerned.

      Table 44 :Water applied (cm) and yield (q/ha) of different vegetables
       Vegetables                 Quantity of water (cm)                             Yield (q/ha)
                               Suction                Pitcher              Suction                  Pitcher
                          2              12     2               12    2              12        2              12
Kundru                    --             --     --              --    --             --        --             --
Bottle gourd             6.5         6.8      10.2            10.2    315        304          302             2
Ridge gourd              5.1         5.1        9.8             9.8   334        320          321             3
Bitter gourd             4.9         4.9        9.7             9.7   196        185          188             1

      Development of proto-typed auto-irrigators :
              Several auto-irrigators were developed to replace factory made costly and
      sophisticated auto-irrigators. The gulli and dumb-bell shaped emitters were developed to
      irrigate economically any seasonal crop and vegetable sown in rows. The gulli-shaped
      emitters were modified and developed to irrigate sugarcane.
              Bulb, ball and emitter battery were developed to irrigate annual and biannual
      plants including fruit plants.
             These auto-irrigators require clayey soils (Potter’s soil) and cowdung replacing
      synthetic materials adapted in factories. They can be developed by ordinary potters or
      farmers after undergoing little training.
              The prototype auto-irrigators are simple, low cost, easy to fabricate and low in
      running cost. The operation is easy. This saves about 90% irrigation water than applied
      to furrow irrigation.




                                                         48
Studies on rate of salization of soil :
        For the studies on rate of salinization of soil under shallow water table condition
three sites designation as A, B & C (viz; RD-276, RD-277 and RD-305) in Loonkaransar
Tehsil falling under IGNP command having water table varying from 0.6 to 1.8 m. were
selected to find out rate at which salts move to the surface under bare condition of soil.
One year study revealed that the capillary flow and rate of silinization are higher at site A
where water table was 81 cm. followed by site C (average water table 94 cm.) whereas
capillary flow and rate of salinization were the lowest or almost negligible at site B where
average water table remained below 125 cm. (Table 45).
Table 45 :Rate of capillary flow and soil salinization at different sites under bare
conditions
Site    Average watertable               Capillary (mm/day)            Rate of salinization (mg/cm²/day)
                 (cm)
                                Kharif         Rabi       Annual       Kharif        Rabi        Annual
 A                81            +0.63          +0.64          +1.02    +0.062       +0.045       +0.10
 B               128            +0.16          +0.12          +0.26    +0.005       +0.005       +0.00
 C                94            +0.29          +0.58          +0.30    +0.020       +0.029       +0.02



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




                                                 49
Nutrient Management of Gypsiferous Soils
        Studies on nutrient management of gypsiferous soils indicated that yield and yield
attributes of guar and wheat were significantly higher in soil containing 5 to 10 per cent
gypsum than control (no gypsum). Urea and Ammonium sulphate were found superior to
CAN. Yield and yield attributes of guar and wheat were significantly higher when 100
per cent of recommended dose of fertilizer was applied as compared to 75 per cent of
recommended dose (Table 47 & 48).
Table 47 :Effect of N carriers and fertilizer dose on yield and yield attributes of guar
grown on gypsiferous soils (Average of two years )
       Treatments         Dry matter    Pod yield (g/plant)   Height      (cm)    No. of
                           (g/plant)                                             Pods/plant
Control                      4.24               0.72               18.9             3.9
5% gypsum                    6.40               1.62               26.9             6.4
10% gypsum                   7.59               2.14               27.1             8.8
SEm±                         0.19               0.08               1.1              0.3
C.D. at 5%                   0.52               0.21               3.1              0.8
N carriers :
Urea                         6.47               1.66               22.6             6.8
CAN                          5.33               1.32               22.7             5.5
Amm. sulphate                6.43               1.61               27.6             6.8
SEm±                         0.19               0.08               1.1              0.3
C.D. at 5%                   0.52               0.21               3.1              0.8
Fertilizer dose:
 75% RD                      5.02               1.01               21.8             4.8
100% RD                      6.57               1.70               21.2             7.1
125% RD                      6.70               1.75               28.5             7.4
SEm±                         0.19               0.08               1.1              0.3
C.D. at 5%                   0.52               0.21               3.1              0.8




                                           50
Table 48 Effect of N carriers and fertilizer dose on yield and yield attributes of wheat
         grown on gypsiferous soils
       Treatments           Yield per plant (g)        Height      Ear length   1000-grain
                             Straw     Grain           (cm)          (cm)       weight (g)
Control                    1.002         0.435          38.2          6.6         19.0
 5% gypsum                 1.239         0.479          38.6          6.7         21.0
10% gypsum                 1.258         0.253          39.7          7.0         21.7
SEm±                       0.022         0.023           0.3          0.08         0.22
C.D. at 5%                 0.062         0.063           1.0          0.22         0.62


N carriers :
Urea                       1.231         0.507          39.2          6.8         20.9
CAN                        1.049         0.429          37.9          6.7         20.0
Amm. sulphate              1.218         0.502          39.6          6.9         20.9
SEm±                       0.022         0.023           0.3          0.08         0.22
C.D. at 5%                 0.062         0.063           1.0           NS          0.62


Fertilizer dose:
 75% RD                    1.048         0.401          36.6          6.2         19.2
100% RD                    1.221         0.513          39.7          7.0         21.3
125% RD                    1.229         0.523          40.3          7.1         21.3
SEm±                       0.022         0.023           0.3          0.08         0.22
C.D. at 5%                 0.062         0.063           1.0          0.22         0.62
C.V.%                       9.8           7.0            5.6          6.1           5.6


          Studies on effect of nitrogen carriers and ECiw on yield of wheat grown on
gypsiferous soil revealed that yield and yield attributes of wheat increased significantly
when gypsum content of soil increased up to 10 per cent. The maximum and
significantly higher yields of wheat were recorded              when recommended dose of
nitrogen was applied through 50% Urea+50% FYM in comparson to urea and FYM
alone.     The yield and yield attributes of wheat decreased significantly when ECiw
increased beyond 4.0 dSm-1(Table 49).
Table 49 Effect of N carriers and ECiw on yield and yield attributes of wheat grown on
             gypsiferous soils



                                                  51
     Treatments   Grain yield   Biological yield   Plant height (cm)   Ear length (cm)
                   (g/plant)       (g/plant)
Control             0.160            0.491               27.9                3.9
 5% gypsum          0.176            0.568               29.3                4.2
10% gypsum          0.184            0.577               29.6                4.4
SEm±                0.004            0.011                0.4                0.07
C.D. at 5%          0.012            0.031                1.2                0.20
N carriers :
Urea                0.087            0.327               24.2                3.4
50%FYM +            0.236            0.712               32.3                5.1
50% Urea
FYM                 0.197            0.597               30.4                4.1
SEm±                0.004            0.011                0.4                0.07
C.D. at 5%          0.012            0.031                1.2                0.20
             -1
ECiw(dSm )
 0.25 (BAW)         0.231            0.745               33.2                4.9
 4                  0.219            0.710               31.9                4.8
 8                  0.157            0.494               28.2                3.9
12                  0.086            0.232               22.4                3.1
SEm±                0.005            0.013                0.5                0.08
C.D. at 5%          0.013            0.036                1.3                0.22
C.V.%                12.7            12.2                 8.7               10.1




                                      52
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF PRACTICAL UTILITY


Survey and characterisation of underground irrigation waters and corresponding soils of
12 tehsils of Jaipur district. viz. Kotputali, Viratnagar, Amer, Jaipur, Sanganer, Bassi,
Dudu, Phagi, Chaksu, Sambhar, Jamva Ramgarh and Dausa and four tehsils of Bikaner
district viz. Loonkaransar, Kolayat, Bikaner and Nokha and two tehsils of Churu district
(Sridungargarh and Sardarsahar) of Western Rajasthan have done. Water quality maps
have also been prepared. The recommendations based on the quality of water and soils
have been made to the farmers.

Table : Salt tolerence of crop varieties
Crop               Variety                 Eciw (dS/m)    Yield(q/ha)            Year
Wheat              K.Sona                      12            21.1               1981-83
Barley             RD-31                       12            33.5               1981-83
Guar               Durgapura safed              6             4.0               1981-83
Methi              Nagauri local                6             9.6               1980-83
Mustard            T-59                        10            17.0               1980-83
Spinach            Jobner green                 6            560                1984-87
Chillies(green)    Local                        6            83.8               1985-87
Corriander         UD-41                        8            10.4               1986-87


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




                                               53
Screening of alite varieties/genotypes of different crops for cultivation under irrigation
with poor quality waters
Crop                   Varieties
Pearlmillet            HHB-60, RHB-90, MH-419, BJ-104, LCB-1
Wheat                  Raj-3077, K-65,Raj.2918, Raj.2991,Raj.1114, KRL:1-4
Guar                   HG-75, RGC-978,GAUG-34
Groundnut              SB XI and K-3
Mustard                RBT-1,RBT-2 and Kranti
Cumin                  RZ-19, UC-208
Barley                 BL-2, RS-17 and RS-6


Germination of guar decreased significantly beyond EC of soil 1.94 dS/m. The variety
Durgapura safed , RGC-986 and Durga jaya maintained higher germination upto EC 2.50
and 3.19 dS/m. The genotype MP-228 and 243 A X S min 5053 of pearlmillet showed
76% germination even at EC2 of 3.19 dS/m.
Studies on performance of saline water irrigation on grasses indicated that Rhodes grass
(Chloris gayane) was most efficient followed by blue panic
Incorporation of dhamasa (Tephrosia purpuria) and subabool (Leucaiena leucocephala)
in has shown promising results for reducing the deleterious effects of continuous use of
saline water (8 dS/m) on wheat, barley , bajra, guar, gram and methi. Organic materials
increased exchangeable Ca+Mg and decreased exchangeable Na, CaCO3 , EC and pH of
alkali soil.
Application of gypsum @ ½ GR every third year has been recommended while using
high RSC water in Jaipur. Mustard is preferred over wheat, gypsum has been found to be
superior to use of pyrites.
Combined use of organic materials and inorganic amendments (Gypsum, Sulphur etc.)
resulted in better reclamation as compared to their individual uses.
Green manuring with daincha resulted in yield improvement almost equal to application
of gypsum @ 50% GR.
It requires a period of at least 6 weeks for sulphur and pyrites to oxidise to sulphuric acid
and establish an equilibrium with soil exchangeable complex use of pyrite improved
water holding capacity and pore spaces in alkali soil.
Application of gypsum and ½ GR (5 t/ha) with NP gave significantly higher grain yield
and oil content of mustard in soil irrigated with high RSC waters compared to control.
Use of rice husk in conjuction with inorganic amendments like gypsum or sulphur is very
effective in improving soil physical properties and yield of paddy from a saline sodic soil.
Dhaincha - wheat /barley - rotation was found to give maximum yield and returns on salt
affected soils.
Suction irrigation system developed was found to be the most suitable irrigation method
to irrigate economically row crops, fruits and vegetables.



                                              54
Several auto irrigators were developed to irrigate fruits, vegetables, floors and medicinal
plants . They are cheap and can be fabricated locally.
At a given level of RSC, the adverse effect of RSC on plant growth is related to ratio of
CO3/ HCO3 ions in the irrigation waters i.e. CO3 ions are relatively more harmful . Ratio
of Cl : SO4 in saline water showed non significant effect on grain yield of wheat .
Green gram could tolerate sodium salt upto 5 me/l . The general order of specific anion
effect at two level of salinity ( 5-10 me/l) was HCO3’ >CO3’’> NO3’ > Cl’ >SO4”.
Studies on nutrient management in gypsiferous soils indicated that yield and yield
attributes of guar and wheat was significantly higher in soil containing 10 percent
gypsum than normal soil. Urea and Ammonium sulphate were found superior to CAN.
Yield and yield attributes of both the crops were significantly higher when 100 percent of
recommended dose of fertilizer was applied as compared to 75 percent of recommended
dose and it was at par with 125 percent of recommended dose
Studies of rate of salinisation of soil indicated that rate of salinisation negligible if water
table is maintained below 125 cm.




CHAPTER 5

PROPOSED AREAS OF RESEARCH




                                              55
 Inspite of the project being run for more than 20 years, it has not been possible collect
 information on all the aspects related to crop growth and salt affected soils or crop grown
 under poor quality waters . The information on some areas is very meagre and requires
 urgent attention in view of the problems faced by the farmers under field condition in
 both, command and non-command areas of IGNP. Proposed major thrust areas of
 research are as follows:

S. No.                                                             Areas of Research
1.        Integrated nutrient management for salt affected gypsiferous/ calcareous soils.
2.        Rate of soil salinization under varying cropping sequences and water table conditions.
3.        Studies on management of Nitrate/flouride rich waters for their profitable utilization.
4.        Standardization of rapid diagnostic criteria for identification of salt affected soils.
5.        Studies on mineralisation of added organic-N in salt affected soils.
6.        Identification of best cropping sequence for sustainable agriculture in salt affected soil of IGNP area.
7.        Studies on reclamation of salt affected soils of IGNP area having high water table.
8.        Management of poor quality waters for drip and sprinkler irrigation of plants.
9.        Screening of Horticultural crops for salinity and alkalinity tolerance.
10.       Effect of forest trees on salt affected soil.
11.       Standardization of methods for determining gypsum content in gypsiferous soils.
12.       Indices for salinity/alkalinity/boron tolerance for crops.
13.       Conjuctive use of saline and good water for grain and forage production & Afforestation.
14.       Effect of frequency ratio and depth of irrigation with saline water on crops & soils.
15.       Detailed studies on the effect of specific ions/ionic ratios on soil and plant.
16.       Drainage systems under differnt soil types in irrigation projects for controlling water table and soil salinity.
17.       Use of drainage effluents for irrigation of growing fish in disposal ponds or for salt production.
18.       Investigations on salt balance studies in different cropping systems.
19.       Agronomic practices most suitable for salinity/alkali resistant non-conventional crops grown on gypsiferous/calcareous soils.
          Induction of salt resistence in different crops through soma-clonal techniques.
20.       Reclamative capacities of different halophytes.
21.       Quality critieria for sewage water for irrigation.
22.       Studies on socio-economic viability of reclaimation of waterlogged soils at farmers field.
23.       Development of regional hydro-salinity models.
24        Performance of forest trees in water-logged salt affected soils or under irrigation with poor quality waters.
25


 CHAPTER 6

 CONCLUSION




                                                          56
It has been mentioned above that Bikaner centre of the project was shifted to this place in
view of the emerging twin problems of secondary salinisation and water logging in IGNP
command. The work has been done on the critical depth of water table with respect to
salinisation of surface soils, screening of elite varieties of conventional and non-
conventional crops for salinity and sodicity tolerance and characterisation of under
ground waters and corresponding soils in non-command area of IGNP. The work on
management on saline and non-saline gypsiferous soiil is already in progress. Some
work on utilization of nitrate rich saline waters has been intiated. However, some
burning problems requiring urgent attention are still to be tackled i.e. management of
poor quality waters for drip and sprinkler system of irrigation of plants, conjunctive use
of surface and brackish ground water for vegetables, forage production and afforestation .
Use of drainage effluents for irrigation and biological reclaimation of water logged soil.
The work on drainage system under different soil types in irrigation projects for
controlling water table and soil salinity has become an essentiality now. Thus it will
appear that the centres situated in Command areas are to be further strengthened with
respect to staff and budget to develop suitable technology for salt affected water logged
soils.




Bibliography :
Gupta , P.K. and Karan, F. (1984). Use of vegetative amendments for regenerating the fertility of salt
affected soils. Current Agri. 8(3-4):139-143.




                                                    57
Yadav, R.K. .(1982). An indigenous method of water prospecting. Trans. Isdt& ucds. 6(2):12-13.
Gupta,P.K. and Karan, F. (1985). Prospects of utilizing the common wild herbs and shrubs for the
reclamation of saline sodic soils. Trans Isdt & Ucds, 10(1) : 39-44)

Keshwa, G.L., Singh, S.D. (1988). Economic potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) pearlmillet
(Pennisetum glaucum) rotation as affected by soil amendments and phosphate fertilization under saline
sodic condition. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 58 : 845-7.

Keshwa, G.L. and Singh, S.D. (1988). Effect of soil amendments and phosphate fertilization on soil
properties and nutrient uptake in a saline sodic soil.Current Agric. 12: 65-70.

Keshwa, G.L. and Singh, S.D. (1988) . Effect of soil amendments and phosphorus fertilization on yield
and quality of wheat grown and salt affected soils. Indian J. Agron.33:416-9

Keshwa, G.L. and Singh, G.D. (1989). Study on the economics of soil amendments and phosphate
fertilization for wheat cultivation in salt affected loamy said areas of Rajasthan.
Proc.Intem.Symp.Managing Sandy Soils, Jodhpur. Vol. 2 pp. 495-498.

Lal, P. and Chhipa, B.R. (1993). Ionic ratio as the basis of salt tolerance in wheat. Trans. Usdt. 18 :
                29-38.

Lal, P.; Chhipa, B.R. and Kumar, A. (1993). Salt affected soils and crop production : A modern synthesis.
Published by Agro-botanical Publishers (India) 4E-176, GN Vyas Nagar, Bikaner.343003..393 p.

Lal, P. and Singhania, R.A. (1994). Effect of soil salinity on the performance of cowpea and green
                gram. Indian Soc. of Soil Sci.- Diamond Jublee- 1994, pp. 784.

Lal, P; Singhania, R.A. and Verma, B.L. (1995). Survey and characterisation of underground irrigation
waters of Nokha tehsil of Bikaner district. National sym. on managing water resources for sustainable
agriculture and environment, held at G.A.U.,Navsari, oct 5-7, pp6.

Lal, P.; Verma B.L. and Singhania R.A.(1996). Effect of soil salinity on the performence of gram .Abstract
of papers of national seminar on development in soil science. Indian soc. Soil Science, held at College of
Agriculture, Anand-GAU:281.

Lal, P. and Verma, B.L. (1997).Effect of soil salinity on the performance of sesame. 62 nd Annual
Convention of ISSS, pp. 304.

Lal, P., Verma, B.L., Sharma, Yogesh and Verma, Arvind (1997). Uttar Paschimi Rajasthan Mai lawan
Prabhavit Mrida Prabhandh. Rajasthan Sujas ( In Hindi), February-March, 1977, pp.19.

Manohar, R.S. ; Vyas, K.K.; Somani, L.L. and Chhipa, B.R. (1984). Crop production in salt -affected soils.
Raj. Agric., 15 : 1-5.

Pathan, A.R.,K.; Chhipa, B.R. , Lal, P. and Vyas, K.K. (1991). Effect of salinity and sodicity of irrigation
water on properties of different textured soils. Vol. 2 : 22-29.




                                                    58
 Sharma, K.K.; Bhandari, S.C. and Vyas, K.K. (1992). Dynamics of biomass C and N in salt affected soils
amended with Tephrosia purpurea. Proc. of International Symp. on Nutrient Management for Sustained
Productivity. Vol. II. pp. 153-154.

Sharma, Yogesh and Verma , A. (1997). Performance of different genotypes of clusterbean under salt
affected soils . 62nd Annual Convention of ISSS, pp.305.

Singh, G.D.; Vyas, K.K.; Sharma, H.S.; Kameria, P.R. and Yadav, B.L. (1987). Vegetable yield and
economics of pitcher irrigation for chillies on sandy soils under saline water irrigation. Abstracts of paper
22, p.17. 5th All India Conference on desert technology, Central Salt and marine chemical Research
Institute, Bhavnagar (Gujarat), Oct. 26-28, 1987.

Singh, G.,D.; Vyas, K.K.; Sharma, H.S. and Kameria, P.R. (1989). Pitcher irrigation for knol-khol
production with saline water. Proc. Intntl. Symp. on Managing Sandy Soils, Jodhpur, Vol. 2, pp. 529-531.

Singh, S .D. and Vyas, K.K. (1988). Effect of coated fertilizers on N, P and K uptake by wheat under saline
water irrigation. National seminar on curent trend in soil research. 53rd Annual Convention of Indian Soc.
Soil Sci., Bhubaneshwar.

Singhania, R.A.; Vyas, K.K. and Singh, G.D. (1991). Minimization of adverse effect of high R.S.C. water
on plant growth and soil properties. Trans. Indian Soc.Desert Tech. 16:37-   43.

Singhania, R.A. and Lal, P. (1993). Effect of salinity on germination of pearlmillet and guar. National
Seminar on Development in Soil Science-1993, pp. 177.

Singhania, R.A.; Lal, P.; Sharma, Yogesh and Verma, A. (1994). Effect of soil salinity on the performance
of wheat and gram. Ind. Soc. of Soil Science - Diamond Jublee- 1994 : pp 782.

Singhania, R.A., Verma, B.L.; Lal, P. and Sharma, Yogesh (1996). Effect of soil salinity on the
performance of wheat. Abstracts of papers of National Seminar on Development in Soil Science. Indian
Soc. of Soil Science, held at College of Agriculture, Anand- GAU : 283.

Somani, L.L. and Saxena, S.N. (1981a). The effect of organic and inorganic amendments on the microflora
and crop growth in calcareous saline - alkali soils. Pedobiologia, 25 : 232-242,

Somani, L.L. and Saxena, S.N. (1981b). Role of some sources of organic materials alone and in conjuction
with inorganic amendments in reclamation of a typical calcareous saline alkali soil of Rajasthan.
Agrochimica, 25 : 232-242..

 Somani, L.L.; Kanthaliya, P.C.; Gulati, I.J. and Vyas, K.K. (1988). Germination of some varieties of green
gram (Phaseolus aureus Roxb.) in relation to anionic composition of saline irrigation waters in Trans &
Isdt.,. pp. 85-89.

Somani, L.L.; Vyas, K.K.; Gulati, I.J.; Ladha, K.C. and Kanthalia, P.C. (1989). Reclaiming sodic soils
through waste and by product of sulphuric acid ,Dryland Resources and Technology, 7: 84-95.

Somani, L.L.; Gaur, H.N.and Bhandari, S.C. (1989). Microbiology of salt affected soils. In : Soil Micro-
organisms and Crop Growth, L.L. Somani and S.C. Bhandari (eds.), Divyajyoti Prakashan, Jodhpur. pp 31-
51.
Somani, L.L. (1989). Dictionary of Soils and Fertilizers. Mittal Publications, New Delhi.-110059, P.1444

Somani, L.L. (1989). Crop production with Saline Water. Agro. Botanical, Bikaner, pp. 1-308 .




                                                     59
Somani, L.L. (1990). Alkali Soils : Their Reclamation and Management. Divyajyoti Prakashan, Jodhpur. 1-
331.

Somani, L.L.; Vyas, K.K.; Singhania, R.A.; Bhati, D.S.; Mundra, M.C.; Totawat, K.L.; Laddha, D.C. and
Kanthaliya, P.C. (1990). Reclamation of alkali soils through green manuring. Dryland Resources and
Technology, Vol. 5,Divyajyoti Prakashan, Jodhpur, pp. 95-105 .

Verma, A. and Sharma, Yogesh (1997). Performance of groundnut varieties under poor quality
             irrigation water. 62nd Annual Convention of ISSS. pp.54.

Verma, B.L.; Verma, Arvind and Singhania, R.A. (1996). Performance of cumin under saline conditions.
Abstracts of papers of National Seminar on Development in Soil Science. indian Soc. of Soil Science, held
at College of Agriculture, Anand-GAU :282.

Verma, B.L. and Lal, P. (1997). Survey and characterisation of underground water of Sri Dungargarh tehsil
of Churu district in Rajasthan. 62nd Annual Convention of     ISSS, pp. 276.

Vyas, B.M and Vyas, K.K. (1974). Effect of saline irrigation water on physico-chemical properties of soil
of Bilara tract. Univ. J. Res., 1 :12-38.

Vyas, K.K. and Marwaha, P.,S. (1973). Effect of levels of phosphorus and sodium salts on the yield and
yield attributes of wheat S-227. J. Soc. Ag. Scientist, Vol. 1 : 21-30.

Vyas, K.K., Marwaha, P.S. and Didal, M.L. (1973). Studies on saline alkali soils of Jaipur
district(Rajasthan) II. Analysis of saturation extract. Agril. & Agro. Industries Journal. 1-4.

Vyas, K.K., Marwaha, P.S. and Didal, M.L. (1974). Studies on saline alkali soils of Jaipur district
(Rajasthan). I. Mechanical composition. Agriculture & Agro-Industries Journal 1-4.

Vyas, K.K.; Khurana, G.P. and Vyas, B.M. (1982). Soil properties as affected by saline irrigation
               water of Bilara (Jodhpur) Ann. Arid Zone. Vol. 21(4) : 225-233.

Vyas, K.K.; Singh, G.D. and Yadav, B.L. (1986). Study of the growth and yield of wheat as affected by
irrigation levels with saline water and different levels of fertility. Proc. Intntl. Symp. Water Management in
Arid and Semi-arid Zones, UNESCO-HAU, Vol. 2 pp. 65-73.

Vyas, K.K.; Singh, G.D. and Yadav, B.L. (1986). Study on the growth and yield of wheat as affected by
irrigation levels with saline water and different levels of fertility. Proc. International seminar “Water
Management in arid and semi-arid zones”, Nov. 27-12, 1986, UNESCO-HAU-Hissar,Vol. II : 65-72

Vyas, K.K.; Singh, G. and Yadav, B.L. (1987). Effect of organic amendments in reducing the deleterious
effect of saline water irrigation. Paper presented in 52 nd Annual Convention of the Indian Society of soil
Science held at Pune, Nov. 26-28, p.86.




Vyas, K.K.; Singh, G.D.; Singhania, R.A., Kameria, P.R.; Yadav, B.L. and Sharma, H.S. (1988)
Effect of some organic amendments for reducing the deleterious effect of saline          water irrigation
on cluster bean and chickpea in a loamy sand soil. National Seminar on current trends in soil research. 53 rd
Annual Convention of Indian Soc. Soil Sci., Bhubaneshwar.




                                                     60
Vyas, K.K.; Singh, G.D.; Kameria, P.R.; Yadav, B.L. and Sharma, H.S. (1989). Study on the amendment
potential of dfifferent organic amendment in reducing the deleterious effect of saline water on chickpea
production in sandy soil. Abstracts of Papers. Presentative International symposium on “Managing Sandy
Soil” on Feb. 6-10, 1989 at CAZRI, Jodhpur. 465-468.

Vyas, K.K. ; Singh, G.D.; Kameria, P.R.,; Yadav, B.L. and Sharma, H.S. (1989)., A study on the
amendments potential of different organic amendments in reducing deleterious effect of saline water on
chickpea production in sandy soils. Proc. Intntl. Symp. Managing Sandy Soils, Jodhpur. Vol. 2 pp. 465-
468.

Vyas, K.K. and Singh, S.D. (1989).. Efficient use of urea and coated fertilizers in light textured soil
               under saline water irrigation. Proc. Intern. Symp., Managing Sandy Soils,Jodhpur. Vol. 1
pp. 431-435.

Vyas, K.K.; Singhania, R.A.; Singh, S.D.; Gupta, P.K.; Yadav, B.L.; Bohra, M.C. and Kameria, P.R.
(1993). Irrigation water quality of some tehsils of Jaipur district. Bhujal News . 8 (2) : 41-43.

Yadav, R.K. .(1982). An indigenous method of water prospecting. Trans. Isdt& ucds. 6(2):12-13.
Yadav, R.K. (1983). Clay jar irrigation. Irrigation News, Bet Dagan, Israel. No.30 pp.2.

Yadav, R.K. (1985). A new irrigation technology for villages. Bhagirath. 33 : 1-5




                                                     61
62

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:63
posted:4/1/2012
language:English
pages:62
Description: Raj sr