Malt Barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.) Water Use and Grain Yield Response to Saline Irrigation Under Shallow Groundwater Table Conditions

Abstract

Global water scarcity and salinity of irrigated lands remain a concern. Shallow groundwater tables, often present in irrigation areas, may serve as energy‐efficient water sources, but they may also restrict leaching. This study quantified the salinity effects on water use and grain yield of irrigated malt barley in the presence of a shallow groundwater table. A lysimeter experiment was conducted over two seasons on sandy and sandy loam soils in Bloemfontein, South Africa. A Cocktail barley cultivar was irrigated with five irrigation water quality levels (ECi), i.e. control (1.5), 4.5, 6, 9 and 12 dS m−1. Salinity of the constant (1.2 m) groundwater table corresponded to ECi.Saline irrigation water had cumulative depressive effect on evapotranspiration, groundwater table depletion and grain yield as well as water productivity. Increasing ECi from the control to 12 dS m−1 reduced grain yield by 91 and 89% for the sandy and sandy loam soil, respectively, in the second season. The relationship between grain yield and salinity was dynamic (R2 = 0.8) and more sigmoidal than linear. Given the fluctuating nature of shallow groundwater and its close association with periodic waterlogging, revision of salinity threshold values and yield–salinity relationships for major cash crops remains critical. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Review of crop‐specific tolerance limits to acidity, salinity, and sodicity for seventeen cereal, pulse, and oilseed crops common to rainfed subtropical cropping systems

“…Note that lupin and mungbean have not been included due to a lack of data. Data used to construct figures has been derived from: (a) Bread Wheat (Bakker et al, 2010; Ballantyne, 1962; Fowler & Hamm, 1980; Francois, Maas, Donovan, & Youngs, 1986; Mosaffa & Sepaskhah, 2019; Naresh, Minhas, Goyal, Chauhan, & Gupta, 1993; Richards et al, 1987; Saqib, Akhtar, & Qureshi, 2004; Sharma et al, 1990; Sharma, Rao, Singh, Kumbhare, & Oosterbaan, 1994; Steppuhn, Wall, Rasiah, & Jame, 1996) (b) Durum Wheat (Francois et al, 1986; Hamdi, Suleiman, Hoogenboom, & Shelia, 2019; Katerji et al, 2003; Katerji et al, 2009; Richards et al, 1987; Royo & Abio, 2003; Steppuhn et al, 1996) (c) Barley (Bakker et al, 2010; Ben Khaled et al, 2012; Fowler & Hamm, 1980; Khan & Glenn, 1996; Mathinya, Rensburg, Mavimbela, & Barnard, 2019; McKenzie, Sprout, & Clark, 1983; Peters, 1983; Richards et al, 1987; Royo, Aragués, Playán, & Ortiz, 2000; Sharma et al, 1990; Slavich & Read, 1985; Slavich, Read, & Cullis, 1990) (d) Tritcale (Bakker et al, 2010; Francois, Donovan, Maas, & Rubenthaler, 1988; Richards et al, 1987) (e) Sorghum (Daniells, Holland, Young, Alston, & Bernardi, 2001; El‐Hamid & Hassanein, 1984; Francois, Donovan, & Maas, 1984; Igartua, Gracia, & Lasa, 1995; Ranjbar, Ghadiri, Razzaghi, Sepaskhah, & Edalat, 2015; Ulery & Ernst, 1997) (f) Maize (Amer, 2010; Azizian & Sepaskhah, 2014; Butcher et al, 2018; Feng, Zhang, & Zhang, 2019; Kaddah & Ghowail, 1964; Katerji et al, 2003) (g) Millet (Krishnamurthy, Upadhyaya, Purushothaman, et al, 2014; Nagaz, El Mokh, Masmoudi, & Ben Mechlia, 2017; Oleiwi, Faraj, Hasoun, & Alhamza,…”

What future for small-scale farming in South Africa?

“…While methodological approaches of these studies vary widely from household surveys (Abay et al, 2020), structured questionnaires (Henning et al 2022), in-depth interviews (Vercillo and Frayne, 2023), drawing exercises (Daum, 2019), focus group discussions (Elias et al, 2018), as well as the Q Methodology (Sumberg et al, 2017), there are very few studies employing narratives. With the exception of (LaRue et al, 2021;Metelerkamp et al, 2019) these studies have relied on verbal exchanges which have been noted to be limited in capturing "emergent" futures (Zipin et al, 2015). Our study incorporated a range of approaches including non-verbal methods as advocated by Elias et al (2018).…”