Utilization Of Salt-Affected Soils By Growing Some Acacia Species

  • M. Yasin Ashraf
  • M. U. Shirazi
  • M. Ashraf
  • G. Sarwar
  • M. Athar Khan
Part of the Tasks for Vegetation Science book series (TAVS, volume 40)

In Pakistan most of the salt affected areas are located in the heart of its agriculturally important tract of the Indus plain. Growing conventional crops in these problem lands is not economical but these could be utilized gainfully by growing salt tolerant trees or shrubs. However, there is a need to identify suitable species for such conditions. The present study was, therefore, undertaken to evaluate the performance of some local and exotic trees, belonging to Acacia species, in salt affected soils of Pakistan. Five species of Acacia, i.e., Acacia ampliceps, A. stenophylla, A. machonochieana, A.sclerosperma, and A.nilotica were grown along with an Australian halophytic shrub Atriplex lentiformis in a field where salinity ranged from 4-25 dS m−1. After three years of growth, A. ampliceps and A. nilotica showed markedly higher growth as compared with the other species examined. Although A. ampliceps grew well under saline environment, its maximum growth was observed under low to medium salinity patches (4-12 dS m−1) showing survival percentage 80-90. However, at high salinity (12-16 dS m−1) the percent survival of A. ampliceps was 50. In contrast, Atriplex lentiformis was mostly populated on medium to high salinity levels (8-16 dS m−1), while Acacia sclerosperma and A. machanochieana were only populated on low salinity patches (4-8 dS m−1). Analysis of plant leaves, for nutrient contents, showed that the concentrations of Na+ and K+ ions in the Acacia species were comparatively less than those in Atriplex lentiformis. However, Acacia nilotica had comparatively higher nitrogen and phosphorus than the other Acacia species examined. On the other hand, the concentrations of Na + and K+ were higher in Atriplex lentformis while the concentrations of Ca2+ were higher in Acacia sclerosperma as compared to the other Acacia species and Atriplex. At the end of the experiment, complete soil analysis was carried out which showed that the soils on which Acacia species were grown, N, P, and K contents increased to some extent.


Tree Species Soil Salinity Wood Density Stem Diameter Acacia Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5. References

  1. Anonymous, 1981. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Islamabad, Pakistan: Government of Pakistan, 10 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous, 2000. Manual of Salinity Research Methods, IWASRI.,Publication, Lahore, Pakistan: IWASRI.Google Scholar
  3. Ansari, R., Khanzada, A.N. & Khan, M.A. 1992. Australian woody species for saline site of South Asia. Progress report, (ACIAR-8633) AEARC, Tandojam. Pakistan: AEARC. 3–11 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agronomy Journal 54: 464–465.Google Scholar
  5. Buford, C.B. 1990. Field Trial Manual for multipurpose Tree Species. Multipurpose Tree Species Network series. Thailand: Winrock International Institute for Agriculture Development.Google Scholar
  6. Dass, H.C. & Shankarnarayan. 1984. Plant resources for wastelands of Rajisthan for bio-energy. In: R.N. Shanlla, O.P. Vimaland & P.D Tyagi. (Eds.), Proceedings of Bio-Energy Society First Convention and Syrup. Delhi, India: Bio-Energy Society of lndia. 84: 58–61.Google Scholar
  7. Gill, H.S. &. Abrol, L.P. 1986. Grow Casuarina tree in sodic soils. Indian farming 35: 31–32.Google Scholar
  8. Goodin, J.R. 1989. SCS Studies feasibilities of Eucalyptus plantation for salt affected farmland in Sanjoaquin valley. California Eucalyptus Grower 4: 1–10.Google Scholar
  9. Grattan, S.R. & Grieve, C.M. 1993. Mineral Nutrient Acquision and Response by Plants in saline environment. In: M. Pessarakali. (Ed.), Handbook of plant and crop stress. New York, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 203–266 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Grewal, S.S. & AbroL, L.P. 1986. Agro-forestry on alkaline soils: Effect of some management practices on initial growth biomass accumulation and chemical composition of selected tree species. Agro-forestry System 4: 221–232Google Scholar
  11. Hayward, I.E. & Lang, E.M. 1941. Anatomical and physiological response of tomato to varying concentration of sodium chloride, sodium sulphate and nutrient solution. Botanical Gazzette 102: 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hussain, I., Mathur, A.N., & Ali, A. 1990. Effect of gypsum on survival and growth of tree species in saline sodic soil. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. London, UK: Prentice Hall Publisher. 498 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Jain, B.L., Muthana, K.D. & Goyal, R.S. 1985. Performance of tree species in salt affected soils in arid regions. Journal Indian Society Soil Science 33: 221–224.Google Scholar
  15. Kadir, A. & Paulsen, G.M. 1982. Effect of salinity on nitrogen metabolism in wheat. Journal Plant Nutrition 5:1141.Google Scholar
  16. Khan, D., Ahamd, R. & Smail, S.I. 1987. Germination, growth and ion regulation in Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. under saline conditions. Pakistan Journal Botany 19: 131–138.Google Scholar
  17. Khanduja, S.D. & Goel, V.L. 1986. Pattern of variability in some fuel wood trees grown on sodic soil. Indian Forester 118–123.Google Scholar
  18. Khanduja, S.D. 1987. Short rotation firewood forestry on sodic soils in Northern India research imperatives. Indian Journal Forest 102: 75–79.Google Scholar
  19. Khanzada, A.N., Morris, J.D., Ansari, R., Siavich, P.G. & Collopy, J.l. 1998. Groundwater uptake and sustainability of Acacia and Prosopis plantations in Southern Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management 36: 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDicken, K.G., Wolf, G.V. & Briscoe, C.B. 1991. Standard research method for multipurpose trees and shrubs. Arlington, Virginia: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. 92 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Majeed, A., Yaqoob, S. & Qureshi, M.A. 1994. Distribution of wood density in a single stem Populus euramericana. Pakistan Journal Scientific Industrial Research 37: 436–438.Google Scholar
  22. Marcar, N.E., Crawford, D., Ashwath, N. & Thomson, L.A.J. 1990. Salt and water-logging tolerance of subtropical leguminous Australian native trees: (A Review). In: S.S.M. Naqvi, R. Ansari, T.J Flower, & A.R. Aznii. (Eds.), International Conference on Current Development in Salinity and Drought Tolerance in Plants. Tandojam, Pakistan: AEARC. 375–387 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Muhammad, S. 1973. Waterlogging, salinity and sodiCity problems of Pakistan. Bulletin Irrigate. Drainage and Flood Control Research Council 3: 41–48.Google Scholar
  24. Neals, T.F. & Sharkey, P.J. 1981. Effect of salinity on growth and on mineral and organic constituent of the halophyte, Disphyma australe (soland) J.M. Black. Australian. Journal Plant Physiology 8: 165–179.Google Scholar
  25. Ohta, S. 1990. Influence of deforestation on the soil of the Pantabangan area, Central Luzon, the Philippines. Soil Science Plant Nutrition 36: 561–573.Google Scholar
  26. Qayoom, M.A. & Malik, M.D. 1988. Farm production losses in salt affected soils. Proc. 1st.National Congress Managing Soil Resources. Lahore, Pakistan: Soil Science Society Pakistan. 356–363 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Qureshi, R.H., Shafqat, N. & Tariq, M. 1992. Performance of selected trees species under saline sodic field conditions in Pakistan. In: H. Lieth, &. A.M. Massoum. (Eds.), Towards rational use of high salinity. Dordrech, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications. l – 11 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Rafiq, M. 1990. Soil resources and soil related problems in Pakistan. In: M. Ahmed, M.E. Akhtar & M.L. Nizam. (Eds.), Soil Physics-Application under stress environments. Islambad. Pakistan: BARD, PARC. 16–23 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Ramani, S. & Joshua, D.C. 1993. Studies on salt tolerance of plants mechanisms and physiological response. Annual Report. Nuclear Agriculture Division, Bombay, India: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.Google Scholar
  30. Reyrnaldo, E. & Cruz, D. 1993. Acacia for Rural Industrial and Environmental Development In: K. Awang & D.A Taylor. (Eds.), Proceeding of second meeting of the consultative group for Research and Development of Acacias (COGREDA). Udorn Thani, Thailand: COGREDA. 198–224 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Sheikh, M.I. 1987. Energy plantation for marginal and problematic lands: Pakistan GCP/RAS/III/NET. Field Documents 81. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO.Google Scholar
  32. Singh, K., Yadav, I.S.P. & Singh, B. 1986. Performance of Acacia nilotica on salt affected soils. Indian Journal of Forestry 9: 296–303.Google Scholar
  33. Singh, P. 1989. Waste land, their problems and potential for fuel and fodder production in India. Report of the regional workshop on water and land development for fuel wood and other rural needs. Vadodora. India 19: 102–113.Google Scholar
  34. Slavich, P. 1991. Properties of salt affected and waterlogged soil. In: W. Tahir & G.M. Black. (Eds.), A guide to tree planting on saline-sodic and waterlogged soils. Pakistan Forestry Planning and Development Project. Govt. of Pakistan. Arlington, Virginia: Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. 16–28 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Soltanpour, P.N. & Schwab, A.P. 1977. A new soil test for simultaneous extraction of macro and micro nutrients in alkaline soils. Communications Soil Science Plant Analyist 8: 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Townsend, W.N. 1972. An introduction to scientific study of the soil. London,UK:Edward-Arnold Publishers Limited, 209 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Walkey, A. &. Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilde, S.1. 1958. Forest Soils. New York: The Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar
  39. Yadav, l.S.P. 1980. Salt affected soils and their afforestation. Indian Forester 106: 259–272.Google Scholar
  40. Yeo, A.R. 1994. Physiological criteria in screening and breeding. In: A.R. Yeo, & T.J. Flowers. (Eds.), Soil Mineral Stresses. Heidelberg, Germany:Springer Verlag, 37–60 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Yasin Ashraf
    • 1
  • M. U. Shirazi
    • 2
  • M. Ashraf
    • 3
  • G. Sarwar
    • 2
  • M. Athar Khan
    • 3
  1. 1.Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB)FaisalabadPakistan
  2. 2.Nuclear Institutes of AgricultureTandojamPakistan
  3. 3.Department of BotanyUniversity of AgricultureFaisalabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations