Skip to main content

Modeling irrigated cotton with shallow groundwater in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan: II. Soil salinity dynamics

Abstract

Years of ill-managed irrigation have triggered secondary soil salinization in the Khorezm region of Uzbekistan located in the Aral Sea basin. To assess the magnitude and dynamics of secondary soil salinization, to quantify improved management strategies and to derive updated irrigation standards, the soil water model Hydrus-1D was used. Water and soil salinity dynamics in three cotton fields with different soil textures were monitored and simulated for the years 2003 and 2005. Until now in Khorezm, overall soil salinity could only be controlled by pre-season salt leaching using high amounts of water. This water, however, may not be available anymore in the near future because of global climate change and shrinking fresh water resources. Simulations confirmed that the present leaching practice is barely effective. At two out of the three locations within a sandy loam field, leaching did not remove salts from the 2 m profile. Instead, salts were only shifted from the upper (0–0.8 m) to the lower (0.8–2 m) soil layer. Strong groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration triggered secondary (re)-salinization of the topsoil during the cropping season. As a consequence, salt amounts in the top 0.8 m of soil increased from 9 to 22 Mg ha−1 in the field with loamy texture, and from 4 to 12 Mg ha−1 in the field with sandy texture. Management strategy analyses revealed that reducing soil evaporation by a surface residue layer would notably decrease secondary soil salinization. Here, owing to the reduced capillary rise of groundwater, post-season salt contents of the three fields were reduced by between 12 and 19% when compared with residue-free conditions. Even more effective would be improving the efficiency of the drainage system so as to lower the groundwater table. This would require a revision of the current irrigation management schemes, but could, as simulations revealed, reduce the post-season salt content in the 2 m soil profile of the three fields by between 36 and 59% when compared with unaltered conditions. For the revised irrigation management in total not more water than already foreseen by national irrigation recommendations would be needed. Increasing leaching and irrigation efficiency would help sustaining the present cotton production levels while reducing future leaching demands.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Abdullaev U (2003) Republic of Uzbekistan. Land degradation assessment in dry lands (LADA). State. Design and Research Institute (Uzgip), Tashkent

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ali AM, van Leeuwen HM, Koopmans RK (2001) Benefits of draining agricultural land in Egypt: results of five years’ monitoring of drainage effects and impacts. Water Res Dev 17:633–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bot AJ, Nachtergaele FO, Young A (2000) Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels. In: World soil resources reports (FAO), no. 90/FAO, Rome (Italy). Land and Water Development Division. p 114

  5. Chernishov AK, Shirokova Y (1999) Express method of soil and water salinity evaluation in Uzbekistan (In Russian). Selskoe hozyaistvo Uzbekistana 5

  6. Christen EW, Ayars JE, Hornbuckle JW (2001) Subsurface drainage design and management in irrigated areas of Australia. Irrig Sci 21:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. CISEAU (2006) Irrigation induced salinization. Background paper presented at the ‘Electronic conference on salinization: extent of salinization and strategies for salt-affected land prevention and rehabilitation’ from February 6 to March 6, 2006. www.dgroups.org/groups/fao/salinization-conf/docs/BackgroundPaper.doc. Last accessed Sept 2008

  8. Conrad C (2006) Remote sensing based modeling and hydrological measurements for the assessment of agricultural water use in the Khorezm region (Uzbekistan), Ph.D. Thesis (in German). University of Wuerzburg, 205 p

  9. FAO (2002) The salt of the earth: hazardous for food production. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/newsroom/focus/focus1.htm. Last accessed Sept 2008

  10. Feddes RA, Kowalik PJ, Zaradny H (1978) Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulation monographs. Pudoc, Wageningen, p 189

    Google Scholar 

  11. Forkutsa I, Sommer R, Shirokova Y, Lamers JPA, Kienzler K, Vlek PLG (2009) Modeling irrigated cotton with shallow groundwater in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan: I. Water dynamics. Irrig Sci (Accepted)

  12. Grieve AM, Dunford E, Marston D, Martin RE, Slavich P (1986) Effects of waterlogging and soil salinity on irrigated agriculture in the Murray Valley: a review. Aust J Exp Agric 26:761–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ibrakhimov M, Khamzina A, Forkutsa I, Paluasheva G, Lamers JPA, Tischbein B, Vlek PLG, Martius C (2007) Groundwater table and salinity: spatial and temporal distribution and influence on soil salinization in Khorezm region (Uzbekistan, Aral Sea Basin). Irrig Drain Syst 21:219–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kienzler K (2009) Improving N use efficiency and crop quality in the Khorezm region, Uzbekistan. PhD Thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, p 230

  15. Maas EV (1990) Crop salt tolerance. In: Tanji KK (ed) “Agricultural salinity assessment and management”, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering practice, No. 71, NY

  16. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 103:115–134

    Google Scholar 

  17. MAWR (2004) Annual report of Amu-Darya basin hydrogeologic melioration expedition, Khorezm region. Ministry of Melioration and Water Resources (MAWR), Tashkent

  18. Murtaza G, Ghafoor A, Qadir M (2006) Irrigation and soil management strategies for using saline-sodic water in a cotton-wheat rotation. Agric Water Manage 81:98–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ochs WJ, Smedema LK (1996) Planning for drainage development in the Aral Sea basin. In: Bos MG (ed) The inter-relationship between irrigation, drainage and the environment in the Aral Sea Basin. Proceedings of the NATO advanced research workshop on drainage and development in arid zones. Kluwer, The Netherlands, p 28–29

  20. Ramazanov AR, Yakubov HE (1988) Leaching and pre-planting irrigation. Mehnat, Tahskent

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rhoades JD, Chanduvi F, Lesch SM (1999) Soil salinity assessment: methods and interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 57, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

  22. Shirokova YI, Ramazanov AR (1989) Development and implementation of ameliorative activities by zones, to increase land productivity to the potential level. SANIIRI Scientific report, Tashkent

  23. Shirokova Y, Forkutsa I, Sharafutdinova N (2000) Use of electrical conductivity instead of soluble salts for soil salinity monitoring in Central Asia. Irrig Drain Syst 14:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Šimunek J, van Genuchten MT, Šejna M (2005) The HYDRUS-1D software package for simulating the one-dimensional movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably-saturated media. Version 3.0, HYDRUS Software Series 1, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, p 270

  25. Singh R (2004) Simulations on direct and cyclic use of saline waters for sustaining cotton–wheat in a semi-arid area of north-west India. Agric Water Manage 66:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smets SMP, Kuper M, Van Dam JC, Feddes RA (1997) Salinization and crop transpiration of irrigated fields in Pakistan’s Punjab. Agric Water Manage 35:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sommer R, Kienzler K, Conrad C, Ibragimov N, Lamers J, Martius C, Vlek PLG (2008) Evaluation of CropSyst for simulating the potential yield of cotton in Uzbekistan. Agron Sustain Dev. doi:10.1051/agro:2008008

  28. Tavernise S (2008) Old farming habits leave Uzbekistan a legacy of salt. New York Times, 15 June 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/world/asia/15uzbek.html?_r=2&re&oref=slogin. Last accessed Feb 2009

  29. Van den Broek JB, Van Dam JC, Elbers JA, Feddes RA, Huygen J, Kabat P, Wesseling JG (1994) SWAP 1993, input instructions manual. Report 45, Department of Water Resources, Wageningen Ag. University, The Netherlands

  30. Van Genuchten MT (1987) A numerical model for water and solute movement in and below the root zone. Research Report 121. USDA-ARS, US Salinity Laboratory, Riverside

  31. Vogel T, Císlerová M (1988) On the reliability of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity calculated from the moisture retention curve. Trans Porous Media 3:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Willis TM, Black AS, Meyer WS (1997) Estimates of deep percolation beneath cotton in the Macquarie Valley. Irrig Sci 17:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rolf Sommer.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Ayars.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Forkutsa, I., Sommer, R., Shirokova, Y.I. et al. Modeling irrigated cotton with shallow groundwater in the Aral Sea Basin of Uzbekistan: II. Soil salinity dynamics. Irrig Sci 27, 319–330 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0149-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Root Mean Square Error
  • Total Dissolve Solid
  • Soil Salinity
  • Irrigation Event
  • Root Water Uptake