INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE & BIOLOGY

1560–8530/2001/03–3–308–311
http://www.ijab.org

Use of Gypsum as an Ameliorant of Brackish Ground Water

K. MAHMOOD, M.Y. NADEEM AND M. IBRAHIM
Soil Chemistry Section, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad–Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Although Pakistan has the largest network of canal system in the world but, still, the river water supplies are insufficient to irrigate the
cropped area under canal command. The canal supply, therefore, is supplemented with brackish ground water to fulfill the water requirement
of crops. To minimize the harmful effects of brackish ground water, careful water management with suitable amendment is important. To
address this problem a long term study was initiated during 1987, where gypsum on the basis of gypsum requirement of water considering
the consumptive use of water of crops was applied to soil in maize-berseem-rice-wheat rotation. The quantity of gypsum based on its 50 and
100% requirement for one, two and three years at a time was applied in soil with 10 t ha-1 FYM and without FYM to neutralize the sodicity
effects of ground water. The pH, ECe and SAR of the original soil were 7.8, 2.8 dS m-1 and 10.9, respectively. The results of first phase of
study (upto 1990-91) indicated that the application of gypsum with FYM reduced the SAR of the soil to 5.0 but ECe increased to 4.2 dS m-1.
To reduce the ECe below 4.0 dS m-1, a heavy irrigation with canal water was applied to all plots before maize 1991, which reduced the
salinity level in soil below 4.0 dS m-1. Then 40% leaching fraction was included in the second phase of study to maintain the salinity level in
soil below 4.0 dS m-1. The application of additional 40% water as leaching fraction was started with berseem 1991-92 and continued upto
wheat 1993-94. Unfortunately, the ECe could not be maintained below 4.0 dS m-1 with the addition of 40% an extra water, therefore, it was
dropped during 1993-94 and the study was continued in third phase upto 1996-97 without leaching fraction with the same treatments. The
average pH, ECe and SAR values after wheat (1996-97) in control were 8.27, 3.46 and 14.0, respectively; whereas, in 100% gypsum + FYM
treatment, these were 8.1, 3.96 and 6.97, respectively. During these three phases of study, recommended doses of fertilizers were applied to
each crop. The yield data indicated that during the third phase, the yields of most of the crops were not significantly affected by the use of
brackish water with gypsum + FYM. Thus, it is concluded that this type of brackish ground water may be successfully used with gypsum to
keep the healthy salt balance in soil without deteriorating the crops yields.

Key Words: Gypsum; Brackish water; Rice; Wheat; Maize; Berseem

INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

Climate of Punjab, being arid to semi-arid, necessitates The project was initiated during 1987-88 at research
irrigation to undertake the agricultural pursuits (Bhatti, area of Soil Chemistry Section, Ayub Agricultural Research
1986). The major part of irrigation water (108 MAF) is Institute, Faisalabad. Before the start of experiment,
supplied through canal (GOP, 1998-99). Unfortunately, the representative soil samples from 0-15 and 15-30 cm depth
canal water supply is not enough to fulfill the entire water were collected and analysed for their physical and chemical
requirements of various crops. However, there exist huge characteristics. Soil was non saline/non sodic with pH, 7.8,
reservoirs of sub soil water underlain in the canal command ECe 2.8 dS m-1 and SAR 10.9 (0-30 cm). Available
area (Mahmood et al., 1999). But, this water contains phosphorus was 12.4 mg kg-1 while available K was 195 mg
varying amounts of salts which may adversely affect the soil kg-1. Tube well water used for irrigation had EC 2.4 dS m-1,
health and crops yields (Hussain, 1977; Malik et al., 1984). SAR 9.2 and RSC 5.7 me L-1. The crop rotation followed
The canal water, therefore, is being supplemented with this was berseem-rice-wheat and maize. To ameliorate the ill
brackish ground water to meet the water requirements of effects of brackish water, the gypsum requirement of water
crops (Thomas et al., 1981) in a cropping intensity was calculated by the equation developed by Eaton (1965)
approaching to 200% (Saleem et al., 1993). The which considers two factors:
indiscriminate use of this poor quality ground water is i. Amount of cations (Ca + Mg and Na) and anions
creating salinity/sodicity problem in the country (Girdhar, (CO3 and HCO3) present in the brackish water.
1988; Sharma & Machanda, 1989; Khan et al., 1991; Prunty ii. Amount of water to be used was based on the
et al., 1991; Hussain et al., 1993). However, the ill effects of consumptive use of water of each crop.
brackish water on soil health may be minimized with the use Using this equation, gypsum on the basis of gypsum
of certain amendments (Alvi et al., 1980; Goyal & Jain, requirement of water was calculated. Three rates of gypsum
1984; Ghafoor et al., 1992; Schuman & Meining, 1993). i.e. 0, 50 and 100% of its requirement were applied with two
Keeping in view these facts, a long-term experiment rates of FYM i.e. 0 and 10 t ha-1 in soil for one, two and
was initiated during 1987-88 to study the effects of brackish three years at a time before sowing the crop. Consumptive
ground water with the application of gypsum in soil use of water for berseem, rice, wheat and maize fodder was
according to the gypsum requirement of water with and 57.5, 150, 42.5 and 32.5 cm, respectively. There were six
without farmyard manure (FYM). treatments randomized four times in split plot design. At the
end of first phase of study (1990-91), the soil analysis
 USE OF GYPSUM AS AN AMELIORANT FOR BRACKISH GROUND WATER / Int. J. Agri. Biol., Vol. 3, No. 3, 2001

indicated that the SAR of soil remained within safe limit. It irrigation with canal water reduced the salinity level in soil
was around 5.0 but ECe of the soil increased beyond 4.0 dS below 4.0 dS m-1 but the application of additional 40%
m-1, therefore, it was decided to apply heavy irrigation with water as leaching fraction did not work and salinity level in
canal water to all plots to bring the ECe of soil below 4.0 dS soil again developed beyond 4.0 dS m-1 (Rashid et al.,
m-1 and then to include 40% leaching fraction to maintain 1994). The leaching fraction thus, was dropped in the third
the ECe of the soil within safe limit (< 4.0 dS m-1) in the phase of study and the results of this phase (1994-95 to
second phase of study. Thus heavy irrigation with canal 1996-97) only are being discussed in this paper.
water was applied before the sowing of maize (1991). As a Soil Properties
result, the ECe in all the plots reduced to less than 4.0 Soil salinity. Since the tubewell water used for irrigation
dS m-1. The application of additional 40% water for purpose was saline-sodic in nature, therefore salinity level
leaching was started with berseem crop 1991-92 and (ECe) in soil increased in all the treatments with continuous
continued upto the end of second phase i.e. wheat 1993-94. use of this water. The salinity level in the original soil was
Unfortunately, the leaching fraction did not work and 2.8 dS m-1 and after wheat 1994-95 (Table I), the average
the ECe of the soil again increased beyond 4.0 dS m-1 upto value was 3.72 in control whereas in 100% gypsum + FYM
the end of second phase. Thus, the leaching fraction was treatment, the value was 4.31 dS m-1. By and large similar
dropped from the plan but the study kept continued in the was the case in other treatments (Table II). In fact when
third phase 1994-95 to 1996-97 with the same treatments. saline or saline-sodic water is used for irrigation, the salinity
The composition of ground water at this stage was little level in soil increases because of the accumulation of
different. The EC was 2.4 dS m-1, SAR was 10.6 and RSC soluble salts in soil (Bhatti, 1986; Saleem et al., 1993;
was 4.8 me L-1. During this period one crop of each maize Rashid et al., 1994). Richards (1954) reported that ECe of
and berseem and two crops of each rice and wheat were the soil will generally be 2-3 times higher than EC of
harvested. irrigation water. During 1995-96, the yield data of berseem
crop, which is comparatively sensitive crop as compared to
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION others, indicated that in control, the berseem fodder yield
was far less than in the other treatments. It indicated that
The results of first phase of this study as mentioned salinity level around 4.0 dS m-1 negatively affected the yield
earlier, indicated that application of gypsum with brackish of berseem crop. It was, therefore, again decided to irrigate
water kept the soil non sodic but the salinity level developed all the plots with canal water to reduce the salinity level
beyond 4.0 dS m-1 (Saleem et al., 1993). The results of below 4.0 dS m-1. By the application of canal water the ECe
second phase of study showed that the application of heavy reduced below 4.0 dS m-1 (Table II). After that again ground

Table I. Effect of brackish water and soil treatments on soil properties after wheat 1994-95

Soil properties Treatments

0% GYP + 50% GYP + 50% GYP + 100% GYP + 100% GYP +
Control
10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM
Y1 8.32 8.33 8.06 8.08 7.98 8.00
pHs Y2 8.24 8.24 7.99 8.18 7.91 7.98
Y3 8.24 8.14 7.96 7.99 7.90 7.95
Y1 3.80 3.80 3.81 3.78 4.82 3.64
ECe Y2 3.52 3.33 3.17 3.80 3.42 4.27
Y3 3.83 3.55 4.50 3.91 4.55 5.02
Y1 16.36 11.88 11.19 10.47 11.40 8.88
SAR Y2 13.01 13.40 11.06 10.84 7.47 7.53
Y3 14.38 12.04 11.10 9.33 7.77 7.95

Table II. Effect of brackish water on soil properties after berseem 1995-96

Soil properties Treatments

Control 0% GYP + 50% GYP + 50% GYP + 100% GYP + 100% GYP +
10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM
Y1 8.40 8.30 8.10 8.16 8.19 8.28
pHs Y2 8.25 8.22 8.27 8.19 8.19 8.02
Y3 8.35 8.33 8.12 8.13 8.04 7.99
Y1 2.57 2.21 2.44 2.17 2.17 1.94
ECe Y2 2.46 2.41 2.10 2.67 2.40 2.88
Y3 2.33 2.21 2.38 2.59 2.76 2.87
Y1 10.92 9.74 9.58 9.26 7.89 8.22
SAR Y2 9.86 9.38 9.07 8.90 5.48 6.14
Y3 9.30 8.22 5.45 5.68 4.62 6.24

309
 MAHMOOD et al. / Int. J. Agri. Biol., Vol. 3, No. 3, 2001

Table III. Effect of brackish water and soil treatments on soil properties after wheat 1996-97

Soil properties Treatments

Control 0% GYP + 50% GYP + 50% GYP + 100% GYP + 100% GYP +
10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM 0 t FYM 10 t FYM
Y1 8.28 8.24 8.12 8.13 8.04 8.10
pHs Y2 8.20 8.26 8.07 8.06 7.88 7.97
Y3 8.33 8.25 8.21 8.13 8.17 8.13
Y1 3.92 3.92 3.70 3.93 3.48 3.47
ECe Y2 3.12 3.88 3.27 3.97 3.44 4.02
Y3 3.35 4.00 3.96 3.48 3.49 4.38
Y1 13.43 10.87 10.23 11.06 8.47 7.39
SAR Y2 14.10 13.50 13.06 8.28 7.14 7.44
Y3 14.46 12.35 11.10 8.92 5.88 6.09

Table IV. Effect of brackish water and soil treatments on crops yields (t ha-1)

Treatments Treatments
Paddy yield Wheat grain yield Maize fodder Berseem Paddy yield Wheat grain yield
1994 1994-95 1995 1995-96 1996 1996-97
Control 2.69 3.46 11.03 23.77 3.35 4.43
0% GYP+10 t FYM 2.80 3.88 11.11 28.71 3.14 4.68
50% GYP+0 t FYM 2.68 3.91 10.73 26.32 3.32 4.69
50% GYP+10 t FYM 2.73 3.84 11.98 28.28 3.30 4.59
100% GYP+0 t FYM 2.98 3.92 11.36 27.35 3.48 4.37
100% GYP+10 t FYM 2.83 3.98 12.39 30.21 3.31 4.28
NS NS NS NS NS NS

water was used for irrigation and salinity level in soil again control plots. The crops included in the study easily
developed and the average ECe value after wheat 1996-97 in tolerated these levels of salinity/sodicity. The crops yields,
control was 3.46; whereas, in 100% gypsum + FYM, it was therefore, were not significantly affected. Since berseem and
3.96 dS m-1. maize crops are more sensitive to sodicity, therefore, in
Soil sodicity control, the yield of berseem was minimum (23.77 t ha-1);
Soil pH. The data for soil pH during 1994-95 to 1996-97 are whereas, in 100% gypsum + FYM treatment, it was
presented in Tables II to IV. No appreciable change in soil maximum (30.21 t ha-1). By and large the results of maize
pH was observed during the period under study. Although crop were also similar. However, the differences in yield
there were slight differences in the pH values during all the because of various treatments were statistically similar in all
three years but there was no significant impact of any the cases.
treatment on this parameter of soil.
SAR. The value of SAR in original soil was 10.9. It CONCLUSIONS
increased in control with the use of saline-sodic water for
irrigation whereas in case of gypsum and gypsum + FYM 1. This type of brackish ground water may be
treatments, it reduced. During 1994-95, the average value of successfully used with gypsum to keep the healthy
SAR in control treament was 14.0; whereas, in case of salt balance in soil without deteriorating the crops
100% gypsum + FYM, it was 8.1. Gypsum application yields.
alone on the basis of gypsum requirement of water also 2. Gypsum application controls the sodicity
proved equally useful because the average SAR value in this development in soil whereas for controlling the
treatment was 8.8 (Table I). The sodicity level slightly development of salinity in soil, a heavy irrigation
reduced with the use of canal water for irrigation during with canal water after every 3-4 years is required.
1995-96; whereas, it again increased during 1996-97. The
average value of SAR in the case of control during 1996-97 REFERENCES
was 14.6 and in 100% gypsum + FYM treatment it was
7.16. It is very clear from these results that soil remained Alvi, B.J., J.L. Strechlein, B.A. Hanlon Jr. and F. Turner, 1980. Quality of
non sodic with the use of gypsum with or without FYM. irrigation water and effect of sulphuric acid and gypsum on soil
properties and Sudan grass. Soil Sci., 129: 315–9.
Crops yields. During the period under study the salinity Bhatti, H.M., 1986. Management of irrigation water qualities for crop
level in soil remained near permissible limit (4.0 dS m-1). production. Final Technical Report of PL-480 Project. Soil
SAR level also remained below 15 which indicate that Chemistry Section, Ayub Agri. Res. Inst., Faisalabad–Pakistan.
severe saline-sodic conditions did not develop even in Eaton, F.H., 1965. Water logging and salinity in the Indus Plain. Comment.
Pak. Develop. Rev., 5: 381–92.

310
 USE OF GYPSUM AS AN AMELIORANT FOR BRACKISH GROUND WATER / Int. J. Agri. Biol., Vol. 3, No. 3, 2001

Girdhar, I.K., 1988. Effect of saline irrigation water on the growth, yield and Malik, D.M., M.A. Khan and B. Ahmad, 1984. Gypsum and fertilizer use
chemical composition of rice crop in a saline soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil efficiency of crop under different irrigation systems in Punjab. Paper
Sci., 36: 324–9. presented in seminar “Optimizing crop production through proper
GOP (Government of Pakistan), 1998-99. Fertilizer Review, p. 52. Planning management of soil resources May 12-13, 1984. Lahore.
and Development Division, NFDC Pub. No.3/2000. Prunty, L., B.R. Montgomery and M.D. Sweency, 1991. Water quality
Ghafoor, A., M.I. Shahid and M. Saghir, 1992. Use of brackish water with effects on soils and alfalfa. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 55: 196–202.
different Ca:Mg ratios for growing wheat and rice during Rashid, M., M.Y. Shakir and M. Jamil, 1994. Effect of brackish water on
reclamation of a soil with phosphogypsum and FYM. Proc. 3rd Natl. crop yield and properties of a soil treated with amendments. Pakistan
Cong. Soil Sci., p. 292–9. March 20-22, 1990. Lahore. J. Soil Sci., 9: 86–90.
Goyal, R.S. and B.L. Jain, 1984. Use of gypsum in modifying crust Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali
condusive conditions in saline water irrigated soils. J. Indian Soc. Soils. USDA Hand Book No. 60, Washington D.C., USA.
Soil Sci., 30: 447–54. Saleem, Z., M. Rashid and M. Ishaq, 1993. Growing crops with brackish
Hussain, G.C., 1977. Water quality and criteria. Proc. Water Management water without affecting soil health. Pakistan J. Soil Sci., 8: 41–6.
for Agriculture, 2: 151–66. Schuman, G.E. and J.L. Meining, 1993. Short term effects of surface
Hussain, T.G., A. Jilani and H.R. Ahmad, 1993. Management of brackish applied gypsum on revegetated sodic bentonite. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
water with chemical amendments in conjunction with rice culture. J., 57: 1083–8.
Pakistan J. Soil Sci., 8: 42–7. Sharma, S.K. and R.H. Machanda, 1989. Effect of irrigation with sodic
Khan, G.S., M. Akram, Z. Gondal and T. Afzal, 1991. Quality of ground water of increasing RSC levels on yield and sodium and chloride
water, land farm and drainage relationship in a semi arid tract around content of chickpea. J. Indian. Soc. Soil Sci., 37: 147–51.
Lahore. II. Summer season. Pakistan J. Soil Sci., 6: 35–9. Thomas, J.R., F.G. Salim and G.F. Oerther, 1981. Use of saline water for
Mahmood, K., M.Y. Nadeem and M. Ibrahim, 1999. Use of brackish water supplemental irrigation of sugarcane. Agron. J., 73: 1011–7.
for irrigation by alternating it with canal water. Proc. Natl. Workshop
on water resources achievements and issues in 20th century and
challenges for the next millennium, p. 202–06. June 28–30, 1999, (Received 25 April 2001; Accepted 06 June 2001)
Islamabad.

311