Advertisement

Irrigation and Drainage Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 3–4, pp 237–250 | Cite as

Response of Sorghum bicolor varieties to soil salinity for feed and food production in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan

  • Tamara BegdullayevaEmail author
  • Kirsten M. Kienzler
  • Elena Kan
  • Nazar Ibragimov
  • John P. A. Lamers
Article

Abstract

Water and land salinization, caused by ill-practiced irrigation and drainage is acute and widespread in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan. A crop frequently grown in these marginal areas is sorghum because of its capability to adapt to saline conditions. However, the salt uptake potential of local varieties for salt-ameliorative purposes, as well as possible income-generation benefits, have not yet been studied. Therefore, field experiments on low, medium and highly saline soils were conducted using four sorghum cultivars (S. vulgare, S. cernuum, S. durra, and S. technicum). The effect of soil salinity on biomass, stover and grain yield, the baking and feed quality, and total water soluble salt (TDS) accumulation, was assessed according to varieties, plant fractions and growth phases. Results showed that S. cernuum had the highest grain yield on the low (5.13 t ha−1), medium (6.05 t ha−1) and highly (3.3 t ha−1) saline soil. S. technicum showed the lowest growth potential under all salinity levels. TDS accumulation varied between 406 and 185 kg ha−1 depending on variety, site, plant fractions and growth stage. Irrespective of the soil salinity levels and varieties, TDS was highest in stover and leaves, while highest TDS uptake, mainly chlorides and bicarbonates, occurred between booting and flowering. Baking quality of all varieties was extremely low, whereas the in-vitro feed was assessed as of medium quality. The findings indicate the scope of local sorghum varieties for phytomelioration of marginal lands in Karakalpakstan, while concurrently satisfying a wider range of rural livelihood needs.

Keywords

Sorghum Soil Salinity Yield Feed and Food Quality Salt Accumulation Growth Phases Plant Fractions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF; project number 0339970A) and the Ministry for Schools, Science and Research of the State of Northrhine-Westfalia funded this study. The results were obtained with support from the Institute of Bioecology, Karakalpakstan-branch, Academy of Science of Uzbekistan, and within the framework of ZEF/UNESCO landscape restructuring project. We are grateful for the valuable comments from anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Arinushkina EV (1970) The guide on soil chemical analysis. Moscow, 275 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. Amzallag GN, Lerner HR, Poljakoff-Mayber A (1990) Induction of increased salt tolerance in Sorghum bicolor by NaCl pretreatment. J Exp Bot 41:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amzallag GN, Seligmann H, Lerner HR (1993) A developmental window for salt adaptation in Sorghum bicolor. J Exp Bot 44:645–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begdullayeva T (2005) The crop of multipurpose use. Agriculture in Uzbekistan, Tashkent 4:28–29 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein N, Silk WK, Läuchli A (1995) Growth and development of sorghum leaves under conditions of NaCl stress: possible role of some mineral elements in growth inhibition. Planta 198(4):699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-total. In: Page AL et al (ed) Methods of soil analysis: Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. ASA Monograph No. 9, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  7. Chub VE (2000) Climate change and its impact on natural resources potential of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Central Asian Hydro-meteorological Research Institute, Tashkent, p 219Google Scholar
  8. Close W, Menke KH (1986) Selected topics in animal nutrition. Deutsche Stiftung Für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), p 255Google Scholar
  9. Cramer GR, Läuchli A, Polito VS (1985) Displacement of Ca by Na from the plasmalemma of root cells. Plant Physiol 79:207–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dowling LF, Arndt C, Hamaker BR (2002) Economic viability of high digestibility sorghum as feed for market broilers. Agron J 94:1050–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elhagwa AI, Richter C, Kleeberg A (2002) Testing salt tolerance of the main sorghum varieties for semi-arid conditions of Sudan. In: Deininger A (ed) Deutscher Tropentag, Witzenhausen: International research on food security, natural resource management and rural development. Challenges to organic farming and sustainable land use in the tropics and subtropics. Kassel University Press, Germany, p 108Google Scholar
  12. FAO (1994) Cherish the earth. Soil management for sustainable agriculture and environmental protection in the tropics. FAO, Rome, p 36Google Scholar
  13. FAO (1995) Sorghum and millets in human nutrition. FAO Food and Nutrition Series, No. 27. Rome, p 184Google Scholar
  14. FAO (1998) World reference base for soil resources. FAO, Rome, ISSS-AISS-IBG, ISRICGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2002) Crop water management: sorghum. AGLW water management group. FAO, Rome http://www.fao.org/AG/AGL/aglw/cropwater/sorghum.stm. Last accessed 12.02.2007
  16. FAO (2003) Fertilizer use by crop in Uzbekistan. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4711E/Y4711E00.HTM. Last accessed 12.02.2007
  17. Francois LE, Donovan T, Maas EV (1984) Salinity effects on seed yield, growth, and germination of grain sorghum. Agron J 76:741–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gates CT, Haydock KP, Claringbold PJ, Robins FM (1966) Growth of varieties of three sorghum species at different levels of salinity. Aust J Exp Agric Anim Husb 6(21):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillel D (2000) Salinity management for sustainable irrigation. Integrating science, environment and economics. Environmental and socially sustainable development. Washington, World Bank, p 92Google Scholar
  20. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (1995) Management strategies to utilize salt affected soils. IAEA TECDOC-814, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ismoilov UE (2004) The scientific basis of increasing the soil fertility. Nukus, Bilim, p 186 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  22. Khamzina A, Lamers JPA, Worbes M, Botman E, Vlek PLG (2005) Assessing the potential of trees for afforestation of degraded landscapes in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan. Agrofor Syst 66(2):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kienzler K, Lamers JPA, Ibragimov N (2004) Efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer norms on irrigated winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for two soil textures in Khorezm province. In: Proceedings of the international conference, New Technologies in Increasing the Soil Fertility. State scientific research institute on soil science and agrochemistry, Tashkent, 9–10 September 2004, pp 234–238Google Scholar
  24. Kotuby-Amacher J, Koenig R, Kitchen B (2006) Salinity and plant tolerance. http://extension.usu.edu/files/agpubs/~HDG4011.HTM. Last accessed 03.07.2006
  25. Krieg DR, Lascano RL (1990) Sorghum, pp 719–739. In: Stewart BA, Nielsen DR (eds) Irrigation of agricultural crops. Agronomy Monograph N°30, ASA-CSSA-SSSA, p 1218Google Scholar
  26. Lavelle P, Spain AV (2001) Soil ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p 654Google Scholar
  27. Maas EV (1993) Testing crops for salinity tolerance, pp. 234–247. In: Maranville JW, BaIigar BV, Duncan RR, Yohe JM (eds) INTSORMIL. Proc. workshop on adaptation of plants to soil stresses, No. 94-2, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 1-4 August 1993Google Scholar
  28. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div 103:115–132Google Scholar
  29. Maas EV, Poss JA, Hoffman GJ (1986) Salinity sensitivity on sorghum at three growth stages. Irrig Sci 7:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michaelis S (1984) Sorghum- und Millet-Hirsen: Anbau, pp 101–105. In: Franke G (ed) Nutzpflanzen der Tropen und Subtropen. Band II. 4. Auflage. S. Hirzel Verlag Leipzig, p 398Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Agriculture (1982) Manual on fodder analysis. Soyuzselhozhimiya Kolos, pp 36–41 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  32. Muminov HR (1980) Sorghum cultivation in Karakalpakstan. Karakalpakstan, Nukus, p 108Google Scholar
  33. Netondo GW, Onyango JC, Beck E (2004a) Sorghum and salinity: I. Response of growth, water relations, and ion accumulation to NaCl salinity. Crop Sci 44:797–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Netondo GW, Onyango JC, Beck E (2004b) Sorghum and salinity: II. Gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence of sorghum under salt stress. Crop Sci 44:806–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pankov MA (1974) Reclamation soil science. Tashkent (in Russian)Google Scholar
  36. Pedersen JF, Milton T, Mass RA (2000) Crop quality & utilization: A twelve-hour in vitro procedure for sorghum grain feed quality assessment. Crop Sci 40:204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qadir M, Noble AD, Oster JD, Schubert S, Ghafoor A (2005) Driving forces for sodium removal during phytoremediation of calcareous sodic and saline-sodic soils: a review. Soil Use Manage 21:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rai KN, Reddy BVS, Saxena KB, Gowda CLL (2004) Prospects of breeding sorghum, pearl millet and pigeon pea for high forage yield and quality. In: New directions for a diverse planet: Proceedings of the 4th international crop science congress Brisbane, Australia, 26 September – 1 October 2004Google Scholar
  39. Rasulov AM (1989) Soils of the USSR Cotton Belt. Cotton Compendium (in Uzbek). Tashkent, pp 26–36Google Scholar
  40. Richardson SG, McCree KJ (1985) Carbon balance and water relations of sorghum exposed to salt and water stress. Plant Physiol 79:1015–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS Institute (2005) SAS user’s guide. Cary, NC, USA, SAS InstGoogle Scholar
  42. UNDP (2005) Enhancement of living standards in Karakalpakstan and Namangan region. http://www. ELS-Karakalpakstan-About Karakalpakstan.htm. Last accessed 27.06.2006
  43. Weimberg R, Lerner HR, Poljakof-Mayber A (1982) A relationship between potassium and proline accumulation in salt stressed Sorghum bicolor. Plant Physiol 55:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. White PJ, Broadly MR (2001) Chloride in soils and its uptake and movement within the plant: a review. Ann Bot 88:967–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara Begdullayeva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kirsten M. Kienzler
    • 2
  • Elena Kan
    • 3
  • Nazar Ibragimov
    • 3
  • John P. A. Lamers
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Bioecology, Karakalpakstan branchAcademy of Science of UzbekistanTashkentUzbekistan
  2. 2.Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF)Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnBonnGermany
  3. 3.ZEF – UNESCO ProjectUrgench State UniversityUrgenchUzbekistan

Personalised recommendations