Quantification of annual soil greenhouse gas emissions under different land u...
OEU20110501 Final Activity Report Biosafor
1. i
032502
BIOSAFOR
BIOSALINE (AGRO)FORESTRY
Remediation of saline wastelands through the production of biosaline biomass
(for bioenergy, fodder and biomass)
Integrating and strengthening the European research
Area Specific Target Project
Final Activity Report: Evaluation of Results
Date due of deliverable: 31. May 2010
Actual submission date: May 2011
Start date of project: 01. December 2006 Duration: 3.75 years
Lead contractor for this deliverable: OASE
Revision: 1st
draft
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002 – 2006)
Dissemination Level
PU Public X
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
3. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
iii
BIOSAFOR project consortium
OASE Organisation for Agriculture in Saline Environments
Prins Hendriklaan 15
1075 AX Amsterdam
The Netherlands
UU Universiteit Utrecht
Copernicus Institut
Heidelberglaan 8
3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands
ICBA International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture
Al Ruywaya
Dubai – Al Ain Highway
Dubai 14660
United Arab Emirates
BARI Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
Joydepur
Gazipur 1701
Bangladesh
ICAR Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI)
Zarifa Farm
Kachhwa Road
Karnal 132001
India
PARC Pakistan Agricultural Research Council
G5/1
Islamabad 44000
Pakistan
ACACIA Institute
Jan van Beaumontstraat 1
2805 RN Gouda
The Netherlands
CITA Centro de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agroalimentaria de Aragon
Avda Montanana 930
50059 Zaragoza
Spain
UHOH Universität Hohenheim
Schloss Hohenheim
70593 Stuttgart
Germany
Contact:
OASE Foundation
Jeannette.Hoek@oasefoundation.eu
www.biosafor.eu
4. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
1
BIOSAFOR - Biosaline (Agro)Forestry: Remediation of saline wastelands through production of
renewable energy, biomaterials and fodder.
Deliverable D24: Final Activity Report: Evaluation of Results
Lead: OASE
Contact: jeannette.hoek@oasefoundation.eu
Contributing scientists
Lead participant: Oase Foundation
Author: Jeannette Hoek
Acknowledgments
This deliverable is an end product of the BIOSAFOR project and therefore all information gathered
and analysed in the earlier work packages throughout the project duration are reviewed in this
deliverable. This deliverable could therefore not have been made without the invaluable
contributions from all the BIOSAFOR partners.
5. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
2
Content
1 The production of renewable energy on ‘wastelands’................................................. 3
2 Biosaline Agro-Forestry ......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Salinization of land ............................................................................................... 5
2.2 Biosaline agriculture and forestry ........................................................................... 6
2.3 Biosaline Agro Forestry (AF) .................................................................................. 6
3 Methodology & Boundaries of the Biosafor study ...................................................... 7
3.1 Methodology........................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Boundaries .........................................................................................................10
4 Evaluation of Results ...........................................................................................12
4.1 Global potentials of biosaline AF ............................................................................12
4.2 Regional potentials ..............................................................................................13
4.3 Development of biosaline AgroForestry (AF-) systems..............................................14
5 Recommendations & Policy measures.....................................................................18
5.1 Main recommendations in terms of technology and further research ..........................18
5.2 Policy measures ..................................................................................................19
6 APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................21
Preferred Biosaline AgroForestry Systems for salt affected areas in S-Asia .............................21
7 List of Project Publications ..................................................................................... 1
6. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
3
1 The production of renewable energy on ‘wastelands’
The need for new sources of energy -and especially renewable energy- has in recent times led to
fierce discussions on the competition between agricultural production for food or for energy. The use
of degraded or marginal land for the production of bio-energy is often proposed as one of the
solutions (Gallagher, 2008). Producing energy on such land by using species with the ability to grow
productively in difficult and extreme environments, would offer possibilities to avoid this dilemma.
The - hype-like - focus on Jatropha curcas with its assumed capacity to grow on marginal land
without much water is resulting from the same idea.
Several studies investigate the global bio-energy potential from degraded and low productive land.
However, these analyses pay only little attention to the type of degradation, the constraints and the
level of severity. These factors are potentially crucial when designing energy crop production
systems and thus also for the performance of these systems. In addition, limited attention is paid to
the present use, vegetation cover and to the biodiversity value of degraded and low productive
areas. A more in-depth analysis of biomass production in relation to the type and degree of land
degradation and in relation to socio-economic conditions would allow a better estimation of the
potentials (Wicke, 2010).
Figure 1: Global salt-affected soils, by type and severity
Based on data from FAO et al., 2008, (Wicke ed al, Biosafor D11, 2009)
Note: This map indicates the location of salt-affected soils worldwide but does not properly represent their areal
extent as a result of multiple soil units per mapping unit of the HWSD. Multiple soil units are defined because
mapping units are not generally homogeneous in soil characteristics. Up to nine soil units may be defined per
mapping unit and the map depicts the whole mapping unit to be salt-affected even if only some of the soil units
are salt-affected.
7. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
4
The BIOSAFOR study endeavors to systematically investigate the global potential of woody biomass
for energy from salt-affected land. Although naturally saline environments can be found on all
continents, the increase of salt affected soils in recent decades is directly or indirectly caused by
human behavior and activities. The main causes are irrigation practices, over extraction of
groundwater in coastal areas and rising sea level as a result of climate change. Estimations for the
global area of salt-affected land range from 400 Mha to 960 Mha (Van Oosten & De Wilt, 2000 citing
Szabolcs 1994; Wood et al., 2000;FAO, 2001; FAO, 2008), depending on, among others, the
datasets, and the classification systems used. This study calculating with both top-soils and sub-soils
comes to a total of 1128Mha, though this may be overrated as a result of the methodology that was
used (Wicke, Biosafor D11, 2009).
1. Extremely salinized soil as a result of waterlogging, Gurgaon area, Haryana India
8. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
5
2 Biosaline Agro-Forestry
2. Biosaline agroforestry trial on sodic soil Lucknow (India), mixed trees
The name of the project, BIOSAFOR, is a contraction of Biosaline Agroforestry and aims at the
productive use of salt affected lands while applying suitable agroforestry practices.
Agroforestry (AF) is an integrated approach using the (interactive) benefits of the combination of
trees with other crops and/or livestock. This combination stands for more robust, diverse and
sustainable land-use systems, especially suitable for vulnerable areas like salt affected lands, time
and again branded as ‘saline wastelands’, which indicates less value than they may actually have.
The BIOSAFOR-project concentrates on the tree-component of AF-systems in saline environments,
which can roughly be identified as areas that are either affected by salinity or have brackish
(ground-)water as the (sometimes only) available source of water for the growth of trees. The
project is equally aiming at contributing to the remediation of saline wastelands and at investigating
their potential role in the regional and global demand for bio-energy and bio-materials.
2.1 Salinization of land
When salinization processes occur in agricultural lands, this land tends to become initially less
productive and -with increasing salinity- more and more unproductive, in the end leading to
desertification and eventually to barren wastelands. Salinity classes indicate the severity of the
salinization. Apart from that there are also different types or categories of salinization all depending
on the specific hydro-geological and climatic circumstances of an area in combination with human
activities. It is undisputable that the largest areas affected by salinization, occur in the arid and
semi-arid regions (Rozema & Flowers, 2008). In such areas, salinization processes increasingly affect
the irrigated areas and the coastal zones. They are difficult to reverse. Most of the reclamation
technologies are too expensive and require large amounts of fresh water, which is a scarce resource
in these countries.
Table 1: Characterization of different types of salt-affected land and their severity levels
(Wicke, Biosafor D11, 2009)
Type of salt-
affected land
Indicator Severity level
Slight Moderate High Extreme
Sodic ESP (%) 15 – 20 20 – 30 30 - 40 > 40
ECe (dS m-1
) < 4 < 4 < 4 < 4
Saline ECe (dS m-1
) 2 – 4 4 – 8 8 - 16 > 16
ESP (%) < 15 < 15 < 15 < 15
Saline-sodic ESP (%), ECe (dS m-1
) 15-20, 4-8 15-20, 8-25
20-30, 4-16
30-40, 4-8
15-20, >25
20-30, 16-25
30-40, 8-16
40-50, 4-8
20-30, >25
30-40, >16
40-50, >8
>50, >4
9. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
6
2.2 Biosaline agriculture and forestry
An alternative for reclamation is the remediation of saline wastelands by Biosaline AF-(Agro-
Forestry) systems. Biosaline agriculture and forestry take a certain amount of salinity for granted
and establish a new and different balance in soil and water, using salt tolerant species and adapted
agricultural technologies. This also gives opportunities to use unconventional brackish or even saline
water resources that would normally not be used for agriculture and thus increase productivity of
previously unused land.
2.3 Biosaline Agro Forestry (AF)
In recent years it has become obvious that in vulnerable areas Agro Forestry systems (AF,
combinations of trees and agricultural crops) are often more beneficial than purely agricultural or
forestry systems or monocultures. Trees play various roles in such systems: from the production of
wood, energy and other forest products to remediation and protection of soils and water balances.
Biosaline AF-systems are combining the advantages of AF-systems with the utilization of halophytes
(salt tolerant trees in combination with conventional food corps, or halophytic fodder crops &
grasses).
3. Decrease in suitable species in Agroforestry-systems with increasing salinity, changing from
conventional crops to halophytes and from agro-forestry to agro-silvi-pastoral to silvi-
pastoral .
10. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
7
3 Methodology & Boundaries of the Biosafor study
3.1 Methodology
The study was organized in six Work Packages (WP’s), varying in content from creating databases on
promising salt tolerant tree species for categories of salt affected areas and recommended biosaline
AF-systems (WP’s 1 and 2) till conclusions and recommendations on the global level.
4. Impressions from pot trials in Spain, UAE, Bangladesh and India (left to right), showing
germination pots, irrigation system, temporary greenhouse and the juvenile plants.
Acacia salicina
Sigmoidal Curve : Shoot biomass
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 10 20 30 40
Root-zone salinity (ECe in dSm
-1
)
RelativeYield
R
2
= 0.532
C50 = 6.302
Threshold Slope: Total biomass
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 10 20 30 40
Root-zone Salinity (ECe in dS.m
-1
)
RelativeYield
R
2
= 0.755
Ct = 4.414
C50 = 18.755
C0 = 31.443
Sigmoidal Curve : Total biomass
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 10 20 30 40
Root-zone Salinity (ECe indS.m
- 1
)
RelativeYield
R
2
= 0.752
C50 = 5.280
Threshold Slope: Shoot biomass
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 10 20 30 40
Root-zone Salinity (ECe indS.m
- 1
)
RelativeYield
R
2
= 0.557
Ct = 6.067
C50 = 18.755
C0 = 31.443
5. Salinity curves Acacia salicina (Biosafor pot trials, Ismail 2009)
Salinity or regression curves show the salinity tolerance of trees in their establishment phase.
However, trees show a variation in salt tolerance during their lifetime. Young trees tend to be more
sensitive. The information gathered from the pot trials is therefore only valid for young trees. To
11. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
8
Prosopis juliflora
Mean Annual Increase vs. ECe (mean)
y = -1.2847x + 52.615
R
2
= 0.3801
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25
ECe (mean) in dS/m
MAI(kgtree
-1
y
-1
)
MAI vs. ECe-mean
Linear (MAI vs. ECe-mean)
know more about the productivity of the trees during their lifecycle the regression curves resulting
from the pot trials should be supplemented with information on the same species/accessions from
pilot areas or CSA’s (Case Study Areas). However, only on three species sufficient information was
available to gather statistically relevant information of their performance during a total life cycle.
When no or insufficient information was available for relatively new or unknown accessions in later
phases of their lifecycle, they could not been included in the calculation of the crop potentials of our
S-Asian target areas.
6. Hypothetic cumulative growth curve for trees: juvenile and mature phase (followed by
senescent phase for last phase), (Ismail S. J., 2011)
7. Linear regression between MAI and LSI for Prosopis juliflora, based on information Case
Study Areas (Vashev, 2010)
Cropping potential of areas.
For salt affected areas in India it was possible to complete a database with information on salinity,
water availability, temperature-ranges and soil quality. These data were digitized and put in a South
Asian Soil, water and Terrain model (SASOTER) indicating the cropping potential of the Indian salt
affected areas. The tree requirements data of specific tree species can be fed into this model to
calculate the potential woody biomass production of this species for a certain area. The maps
resulting from this database provide insight in the growth potential of specific areas for individual
species. This system can be applied on all tree species (and other crops) when the requirements of
these species are known.
12. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
9
As a result of lack of usable data this could not be realized within the timeframe of this study for
Pakistan and Bangladesh. The results of the regional WP’s were used as one of the calibration
parameters for the calculations on a global scale.
13. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
10
Upscaling
A major challenge for the participants in the Biosafor project was how to upscale from individual
species and local case studies to the regional and global level. Modeling of saline environments and
their productivity was intended to build bridges between these levels. This proved partly successful,
but was handicapped by lack of data on soil and water or extreme difficulties in obtaining them1
. It
was also handicapped because of lack of data from later phases of the lifecyce of a number of tree
species.
For pragmatic reasons a bottom up approach was combined with a top down approach, starting with
a description of saline environments on the global scale (WP4, D10) combined with a GIS based
global map (WP4, D11). The global potential in terms of biomass volumes ((Wicke 2010, Biosafor
D12), and economic potential ( Wicke 2010, D13) were calibrated based upon regional data from the
S-Asian focus countries and global data from other sources such as the Harmonized World Soil
Database (FAO, 2008) and a modified Crop and Grass Production Model for the temperate regions
(Leemans, 1994). It was unavoidable to be creative and daring in steps that were taken and to
simplify sometimes complicated matters. For example there are no sufficient data available to map
the depth and salinity of GW globally. Therefore, based on expert judgment, correction factors were
applied using a groundwater recharge map and a map of groundwater extraction rates as a proxy.
(Wicke, D12, 2010).
WP6 describes the most important constraints for sustainable implementation and gives a number of
recommendations and policy measures for further implementation of various biosaline AF systems. A
summary is given in Chapter 4.
3.2 Boundaries
A number of boundaries was set at the beginning of the project. These should be considered when
looking at the results:
1. The focus of the study is on the tree component of biosaline AF-systems. Intercrops are not
being studied. Although it is assumed that in practice these trees will be part of a mixed system,
for the regional and global biomass potentials - a uniform plantation is assumed of 800 trees per
ha or a 4x3 spacing (Vashev, 2010).
2. Only relatively fast growing salt tolerant tree species have been considered.
3. Mangroves are excluded: mostly to avoid conflicting issues as they are important for coastal
protection. They also are relatively slow growers and therefore less suitable for biomass
production.
4. Irrigation & groundwater. Irrigated forestry has not been taken into account – apart from some
initial irrigation for the establishment of the trees (first 2 years). In arid areas, we have
considered this as being economically unviable. The availability of groundwater is therefore the
most decisive factor for potential tree growth. The acceptable lowest limit in groundwater depth
has been set at 15 meters.
No irrigated tree plantations but dry land forestry. Apart from initial irrigation during
establishment the trees should be able to survive without irrigation to be economically viable.
5. Existing field trials had to be used due to the restricted time frame. Therefore modeling could
only be done with well known rather common species and not with promising new species.
1
Data were often too old or when existing sometimes not obtainable for security reasons
14. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
11
6. The choice for non irrigated systems and trees for biomass leaves out the opportunity of
seawater irrigated bushes like Salicornia, Atriplex and other fast growing possibly highly
productive woody biomass producers for coastal areas. Therefore this study certainly does not
pretend to be complete and final in terms of biosaline biomass.
7. Especially developing countries in Asia and Africa with large rural populations, limited agricultural
land and a high demand for food and energy, are most threatened by the impacts of salinization
(Rozema & Flowers, 2008). The Biosafor study uses India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as focal
areas for the in depth study of the productivity of biosaline AF-systems.
8. Groundwater salinity & depth and land cover in Rajasthan (Vashev, 2010)
15. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
12
4 Evaluation of Results
Resuming, the overall objectives of BIOSAFOR were twofold:
1. To contribute to the development of biosaline agro-forestry systems for various saline
environments (local/regional approach) and parallel to that
2. To explore the potentials and options for biomass production in saline environments (globally)
We expected to be able to systemize and further develop/improve several agro-forestry strategies
for the remediation and economic (re-)use of saline wastelands and saline water resources.
Emphasis was to be on competitive, cost effective and sustainable solutions and how to create the
level playing field necessary to realize these.
More specific objectives of BIOSAFOR were:
- to indicate the special role of biosaline agro-forestry for degraded areas with saline soils and/or
areas with brackish water resources
- to contribute to the regeneration of saline wastelands
- to select and screen tree species for the production of biomass in specific saline environments
- to develop agro-forestry systems for biomass production in different kind of saline environments
- to assess the economic and environmental performance of selected biosaline agro-forestry
production systems
- to estimate the amount of biomass that can globally be produced in saline environments
- to assess the potential contribution of biomass from saline environments to a sustainable
biomass, respectively biofuel and biomaterial supply in DEV countries and the EU
- to disseminate the results to relevant gremia (decision makers, politicians) in the EU and to
organizations dealing with salinity globally especially the biosaline networks.
4.1 Global potentials of biosaline AF
Starting with the second general objective the project has found the following:
Hypothetically, a considerable contribution from salt affected lands to the current global need for
energy is possible. Based on a generalized biosaline production system and calibration with the crop
yield models for (sub)tropical and moderate regions, this study finds that biomass yields range
between 0 and 27 odt ha-1 y-1 on salt-affected soils with the average yield for all categories being
3.1 odt ha-1 y-1. The technical energy potential based on biomass production from salt-affected
soils worldwide amounts therefore to 62 EJ y-1 or one-eighth (12,5%) of the current global primary
energy consumption.
However, most of this would be produced in the relatively mildly affected environments (65-85% of
the global salt affected land) where some kind of conventional agriculture is still practiced. This is
confirmed by current land-use (Chapter 7, Table 10). Therefore, it is to be expected that the total
biomass potential will be much less than 12,5%, but more than the 4% (22 Exa Joules) that would
be valid when only the bare and more extreme areas are considered.
NB. To avoid the conflict food versus energy, soil salinity boundaries for growing trees for biomass
purposes have initially been set on the more extreme areas with salinities between 8-20/25 dS/m.
However, the transitional area (4-8 dS/m) is of special interest. Conventional crops will have sub-
optimal results in this category. Adding trees can be most interesting for both economic and
environmental reasons.
When also the production costs are taken into account, it becomes clear that biosaline production
systems are comparatively expensive. Especially the establishment phase of the trees asks for a
16. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
13
much larger investment than conventional tree planting, to guarantee a reasonable chance for
successful growth. Comparing the costs of biosaline woody biomass with prices that are currently
being considered as attractive for energy feedstock on a global market (2 € GJ-1
), only 1,6% or 8 EJ
y-1
can be produced for such prices. If production costs of up to 5 € GJ-1 are considered, the
economic potential increases to 54 EJ y-1. In this case, particularly Australia can produce significant
amounts of biomass, namely 18 EJ y-1.
0
5
10
15
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Supply (EJ y-1
)
Productioncosts(EuroGJ-1
)
totalsalinesodicsaline-
sodic
9. Global cost-supply curves for salt-affected soils
It should be noted that, due to lack of data, both on the costs and on the benefit side a number of
factors could not be taken into account. With more data this picture could be considerably refined
and improved. However, it is not expected that the conclusions at large will change significantly.
According to current standards, we can therefore conclude that the potential role for biosaline woody
biomass on the developing global staple markets for biomass will be rather modest. Even more so
when biosaline biomass is produced in remote areas without sufficient infrastructure for transport
over large distances.
4.2 Regional potentials
The global map of biosaline biomass potentials shows considerable variations between regions. The
global conclusions may thus be very different from the regional ones. For example, taking Africa as a
whole shows that biosaline AF could provide nearly 30% of the total energy consumption in 2007 at
production costs of 2 € GJ-1
or less. In South America and South Asia, this is 6% and 7%,
respectively. Regions with a large biosaline biomass potential are Oceania, South America, North
Africa, East Africa, the former USSR region, the Middle East, West Africa and South Asia. In S-Asia
the case of Pakistan is striking: the technical potential amounts to 55 % of the total current primary
energy consumption.
Western Europe has a limited scope for the production of biosaline biomass and – as import of
biosaline biomass from elsewhere is according to current parameters not an economically attractive
17. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
14
option, biosaline biomass flows will most likely not play an important role in European woody
biomass supply.
Table 2: Regional economic potential of biosaline biomass production
Economic potential (EJ y-1
) Technical potential
(EJ y-1
)≤ 1 € GJ-1
≤ 2 € GJ-1
≤ 5 € GJ-1
Canada 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3
USA 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.4
C America 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
S America 0.0 1.1 8.3 8.8
N Africa 0.0 0.3 5.8 6.9
W Africa 0.0 0.6 3.9 4.0
E Africa 0.1 4.6 5.5 5.6
S Africa 0.0 0.2 1.7 1.8
W Europe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
E Europe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
F USSR 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.9
M East 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.3
S Asia 0.0 1.4 2.3 3.1
E Asia 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.3
SE Asia 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
Oceania 0.0 0.0 17.8 18.5
Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
World 0.1 8.2 54.2 62.5
4.3 Development of biosaline AgroForestry (AF-) systems
The second general objective was ‘to contribute to the development of biosaline AF systems’ . This
project has identified and investigated species/accessions in pot– and field trials, systems for various
categories of saline environments and tools and suggestions for improvement.
Biosaline AF fits in the systemized scientific approach to agrofrestry (AF) in general. ‘AF is
considered to be any land use that maintains or increases total yields by combining foodcrops,
livestock production, and forest crops on the same unit of land, alternately or simultaneously, using
management practices that suit the social and cultural characteristics of the local people and the
ecological and economic conditions of the area (Ffolliott, P.F., 2003). With this definition Ffolliott
stresses that AF is about the regional and local economies – more or less contrary to large scale
plantations connected to the global economy.
In the case of biosaline AF we are dealing with biosaline systems: mutually dependent practices for
salt tolerant trees and conventional or salt tolerant intercrops that together are the system for a
specific saline category. As one of our main objectives is to indicate the amount of biosaline woody
biomass that can be produced within such a system, we are restricting ourselves largely to the
forestry practices within these systems.
For all categories of salt affected areas a biosaline AF management system was identified and
described, primarily focusing on the tree component of the system.
In terms of salinity, it should be noted that the variations in saline environments are great and that
these variations are strongly influenced by other parameters. The most important parameter being
(ground)water. Without water (fresh or brackish) no growth whatsoever is possible. (Seasonal) lack
of water and inclination towards salinisation of the soil often go hand in hand. Depth of groundwater
influences the economy of tree growth. Some indications show that the correlation between depth of
GW and growth may be even stronger than the correlation between salinity and growth – measured
over a period of ten years (see D9, Vashev, 2010).
18. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
15
On the systems level, biosaline AF systems were described for categories of saline environments.
Categorization was based on management options which vary according to type of soil salinity and
available water. Therefore combinations of the FAO-soil parameters and hydro-geological parameters
were used. This produced three main categories: saline, sodic and waterlogging, and a number of
sub-categories, all in arid and semi-arid climate zones (except for the Bangladesh coastal zone,
which is sub-humid). For all categories biosaline AF-systems were described based on the best
practices as provided by the participating research institutes. The economic performance was
evaluated in a number of case studies based on field experiments of our partners from India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Although this study does not pretend to cover all institutional- and field-experiments that have been
performed in the focus countries to test the various biosaline options, some cautious conclusions can
be drawn which will be especially valid for our focal area S-Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh).
10. Acacia ampliceps sodic soils CSA Pacca Anna Pakistan
For sodic systems (high soil sodicity and deep fresh groundwater; high soil sodicity and sodic
groundwater and saline-sodic soils with saline/sodic groundwater), the biosaline AF option
offers in at least two of the three sodic subsystems a possibility to reduce the inclination of the soil
to become sodic against relatively low costs while at the same time improving the total economic
performance as a result of soil remediation and the combined income of trees and intercrops.
For waterlogged systems (permanent and periodic) the role of trees as bio pumps is still under
investigation. Trial results show that biodrainage can be realistic in mildly affected areas and the
economic picture for such areas can be highly profitable.
11. Example of successful preventive biodrainage planting of Eucalyptus in Hissar, India
19. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
16
Only specific trees can grow productively under WL and saline circumstances (such as Casuarina sp,
Tamarix sp). When salinisation as a result of waterlogging is more extreme (and thus for example
above the EC50) tree growth will be too much reduced to enable the tree to function as a biological
pump. It should be noted that in some WL environments an increase of salinity in the root zone has
been measured as a result of tree growth and exclusion of the salts by the tree roots. This issue
should be further investigated.
12. Salinization of groundwater as a result of seawater intrusion in Bangladesh (Vashev, 2010)
For the category saline systems (inland saline, non-delta coastal, river delta humid and arid) where
salinity is not primarily caused by waterlogging, one can assume that economically interesting
biomass production with salt tolerant trees is roughly possible with soil and water salinities up till
15-20 dS/m (1/3 to ½ the salinity of seawater), assuming that sufficient (ground)water is available
at a depth of less than 10 meters. In more extreme areas both in terms of salinity and aridity, some
tree growth may still be possible, but only for environmental, protective reasons.
13. Invasive P. juliflora on saline soils and shallow GW in W-Gujarat
20. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
17
A special case, valid for all salt affected areas but more so for the (semi-) arid saline environments,
are the non native salt tolerant species that have become invasive, such as Prosopis juliflora which
was used as the example tree for invasiveness for India. A strong recommendation is given to find
alternatives for the expensive eradication programs for these trees by turning these into specific
Prosopis based management programs: developing and applying optimum rotation programs in
combination with intercrops like grasses etc, implementing improved accessions of these species and
developing simple improved added value techniques.
Evaluating the know-how on biosaline AF-systems for S-Asia, we conclude that from the technical
point of view the general approach is well known. Although they need to be further developed and
(considerable) improvements in productivity can be expected from improved management and
improved tree species, the bigger issue is the fact that practical implementation of the biosaline
techniques is lacking or still in its infancy. This seems to be more a result of institutional and social
barriers than a result of lack of knowledge.
14. The Total Dissolved Salts at the Groundwater in the Indus Command Area
21. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
18
5 Recommendations & Policy measures
5.1 Main recommendations in terms of technology and further research
• This study focused on trees and not so much on the various intercrops or the interaction
between trees, intercrops, soils and other environmental parameters. For further development
and optimization of biosaline AF- management systems, research on the interaction between all
relevant parameters is highly recommended. This will improve the productivity and therefore the
economic performance.
• Especially more attention is needed for the biosaline AF-system based upon animal husbandry
(pastures) and trees. Increasing pressure on land resources from different stakeholder groups
(small holder farmers, livestock herders, landless farmers or labourers) leads to conflicts and
land degradation. In such areas a fine tuned system can enhance productivity and improved
environments for all stakeholders.
• In the BIOSAFOR salinity pot trials, a number of promising but not widely used accessions
(distinct tree varieties) were identified. These accessions may lead to promising new species for
these areas. Examples are the Tamarix aphylla and the Acacia ampliceps, A. stenophylla, the
Casuarina glauca and C. Obese. Field trials with these species are recommended.
• Tree crop development: as these species are ‘poor man’s trees’ and do not belong to the well
known valuable freshwater species, they are still close to being wild. Hardly any careful selection
and breeding programs exists for these trees. Such a program may take five to ten years, but
improvements in yield can be considerable.
• The supporting role of modeling at regional and local level has been demonstrated in D9. The
SASOTER model shows the impact of various environmental parameters on crop growth and can
thus help optimizing agricultural systems. The SASOTER model can be further used for other
species in India (e.g. Jatropha). And –when a number of soil & water data comes available – the
same model can be implemented in Bangladesh and Pakistan and used for regional crop
planning.
• Optimization of biomass production in biosaline AF-systems for (semi-)arid areas can be further
realized when other existing models2
can be adapted to the specific demands of (semi-)arid
saline environments. However, modeling only works when sufficient data are available. In our
case especially more detailed data on variations in groundwater quality and –level during the
year are missing.
• A clearer picture needs to be gained of the effect of groundwater-depth on average tree growth.
Deeper GW will increase establishment costs. Once the GW is reached, water availability is no
longer a limiting factor thus giving a considerable boost to biomass growth in later phases of the
tree
• Lack of good data on groundwater is even more valid for the global level. This is also valid for
important parameters as flooding and soil depth. The study recommends for future research to
better account for this drawback by, for example, generating a simple global groundwater
indicator map and applying it to the global model. Such a map may be generated by combining
existing information from geomorphologic maps and drainage network maps.this
2
For example the WaNuLCAS model of Water, Nutrient and Light Capture developed for Agroforestry Systems in freshwater
humid areas developed by ICRAF
22. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
19
• Further development of the value chain: Apart from looking at the carbon value and salt content
in the woody biomass, this study has not further investigated the use for bio-materials (fibres
etc) The Biosafor study has not been able to further investigate
5.2 Policy measures
Looking at the socio-economic aspects, the most important policy measures recommended for a
positive economic performance are concerning intercropping, low discount loans or subsidies, social
acceptance, certification, salinity and carbon credits.
• Intercrops often have a higher value than wood alone. They give the opportunity to optimize the
system, making use of soil improvements resulting from tree growth. Existing policies still aim at
planting communal and state lands with single tree species plantations. It is recommended to
encourage AF instead of monoculture with trees and thus make these lands more productive.
• Another area that requires attention is the use of saline biomass for the production of energy.
When burning wood with high salinity, special dedicated gasifiers need to be developed, not
sensitive for corrosion and the clumping of material that makes them less efficient.
15. Wood harvested from saline soils, Lahore Pakistan
16.
• Discount rates can make the difference between a positive or a negative result. It is highly
recommended to offer low interest loans for implementation of these AF-systems or subsidies for
establishment.
• From a social point of view the performance of biosaline AF is highly influenced by the
acceptance of the cultivated species. These aspects have been investigated extensively
especially for P. juliflora. Policy recommendations are based on the work of Pasiecnik and others
(Pasiecznik, 2001) and mentioned above.
• Another policy measure is the certification of woody biomass for energy to prevent uncontrolled
harvesting of invasive trees from salt affected areas and protect valuable indigenous species.
• This study compared several existing methods for assessing the economic value of soil
regeneration and soil carbon sequestration. Leading to (1) a recommendation to create a reward
system or tradable system for salinity credits. And (2) a recommendation to allow the trade of
carbon credits. Both would be highly encouraging for further implementation of biosaline AF
systems.
Controversy food versus energy:
It is interesting to note that the controversy food versus energy can be classified as a non-issue for
many salt affected areas when biosaline AF-systems are applied. Especially the sodic soils and mildly
waterlogged saline soils benefit extremely from a combination of salt tolerant trees with
23. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
20
conventional or biosaline intercrops, in which case the trees not only perform a productive function
but they also function as protection or remediation of soils suffering from -or inclined to- sodicity or
waterlogging. The biosaline AF combination should in such cases be encouraged as much as
possible.
As farmers are inclined (and often forced by circumstances) to go for short term gains, the planting
of trees may be beyond their scope. Here is an important role for implementation policies, as
support in the establishment phase may signify the difference between Yes or No in terms of initial
tree planting.
24. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
21
6 APPENDIX
Preferred Biosaline AgroForestry Systems for salt affected areas in S-Asia
Saline Environments in India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh
Occurrence in
target countries
Preferred Agroforestry
system, role of trees
Biosafor Case
study areas
A1 High soil sodicity with calcareous hard
pans + fresh GW
Haryana, UP, Bihar,
Punjab
Temporary Agroforestry
systems, from silvi-agro to agro;
Halophytic trees to remediate
soil + conventional agro
Lucknow, India
A2 High soil sodicity + sodic GW
India: Haryana, UP,
Bihar, Punjab (India
and Pakistan
Permanent Agroforestry systems
(preferred), silvi-agro
Halophytic trees to remediate
soil + conventional agro; later
protection against returning to
sodicity
Saraswati , India
A3 High saline sodic soils and saline sodic
GW
Pakistan: Punjab
and Sindh
Permanent Agroforestry system:
silvi-agro and agro-silvi
depending on degree of salinity
Halophytic trees to remediate
soil + biosaline agro; later
protection
Pacca Anna,
Pakistan
Lahore, Pakistan
B1 Permanent waterlogged saline soils
(canal command areas with extremely
poor drainage or geo-morphological
basins with hardpan and shallow GW <2
m)
Haryana, Rajasthan,
Punjab
Permanent Agroforestry system:
agro-silvi-aqua-pasture
Trees for bio-drainage
(prevention); agro & pasture
with salt tolerant species (+
pond is advisable)
Sampla, India
B2 Temporary waterlogged saline soils
(canal command areas with poor
drainage or geo-morphological basins
with hardpan and shallow GW <4 m)
Haryana, Rajasthan,
Punjab
Permanent Agroforestry system:
agro-silvi-pasture
Trees for bio-drainage
(prevention); conventional agro
& pasture with salt tolerant
species
Gudha, India:
subsoil wl is
permanent topsoil is
temporary
C Inland system with saline or neutral
soil; saline groundwater or aquifer (rain
fed, no other major influx of surface
water)
Rajasthan, Punjab Permanent Agro-silvi-pastoral
and Pastoral-silvi systems
Trees protection & production,
soil improvement
Hisar, India
Bhudhwara, India
Kharya Sodha, India
D Non delta coastal areas in arid and
semi arid regions: saline or neutral soil,
saline groundwater (rain fed in
combination with seawater intrusion)
Coastal areas in
Pakistan and
Gujarat
Pastoral-silvi permanent system
Trees protection & production,
soil improvement
Gwadar, Pakistan
E.1 River delta systems in (sub)humid
regions (influence of precipitation, river
water and seawater)
Coastal areas
Bangladesh, West
Bengal
Agro-silvi permanent system
Trees: protection & water
retention.
Kuakata,
Bangladesh
Khajura, Bangladesh
E.2 River delta systems in arid and semi-
arid regions (river, precipitation and
seawater)
Indus Delta Permanent pastoral-silvi-agro-
aqua mixed system
Trees: protection, water
retention, production
Badin, Pakistan
26. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
2
A Sodic system B Waterlogged
system
C Saline system D Coastal
system
E River delta system
- humid
E River delta
system - arid
Lucknow
(UP)
Saraswati
(HY)
Lahore
(PK)
Pakka Anna
(PK)
Sampla
(HY)
Ghuda Hisar
(HY)
Bhudhwara
(RJ)
Kharya Sodha
(RJ)
Gwadar
(PK)
Kuakata
(B)
Khajura (B) Badin
A1 A2 A3 A3 B1 B2 C C C D E1 E1 E2
Precipitation (mm) 775 515 628 370 512 512 471 450 450 105 1600 1600 200
Pongamia pinnata/glabra 1995 2000 1992
Prosopis alba 1995 2000
Prosopis cineraria 1992 2002
Prosopis juliflora 1995 2000 2000 1992 1998
Salvadora oleoides 2001
Samana Saman 1997
Sesbania Sesban 2000
Tamarinous indica 2000
Tamarix aphylla/articulate 2000 1992
Tamarix traupii
Terminalia arjuna 1995 2000 1992
Tecomella undulate 1992
Zizyphus jujuba 1992
Ziziphus mauritiana 1992 2002
27. 032502 Biosafor Deliverable D24
1
7 List of Project Publications
Hoek, J., Dornburg, V., & Miedema, S. W. (2010). Biosafor D5&6, Categories of biosaline
Agroforestry systems and biosaline production & management in s-Asia. Amsterdam: Biosafor EU
project.
Ismail, S. & Dingel, C. (2009). Biosafor Deliverable 1, Structured information on salinity thresholds
of juvenile trees explored for a number of saline environments. Dubai, Amsterdam: ICBA & OASE.
Ismail, S. & Dingel, C. (2009). Biosafor Deliverable 2, Database with salinity curves for different tree
species and varieties for main categories of saline environments. Dubai, Amsterdam: ICBA & OASE.
Ismail, S. & Dingel, C. (2008). Deliverable D4, Database with collection of data on existing tree
species in various saline environments and various ages including information in yields and biomass
characteristics. Amsterdam: Biosafor, OASE-ICBA.
Ismail, S. & Hoek J.C. (2011). Biosafor D3, Recommendations on the suitability of tree species for
different saline areas. Amsterdam: OASE, ICBA.
Vashev, B. T. (2010). Biosafor D9, GIS-based maps of salinity (water and soil) and cropping
potentials for saline areas in S-Asia, . Hohenheim: Universität Hohenheim, Biosafor Deliverable 9.
Vashev, B., & Ghawana, T. A. (2009). Deliverable 7, Database on quantities and qualities of water
and soil resources in various saline environments. Gouda: Biosafor, Acacia, Hohenheim.
Vashev, B., & Ghawana, T. (2008). Biosafor D8, Biosafor Land Resources Database, User Manual .
Gouda: Acacia, Universitat Hohenheim.
Wicke, B. E. (2010). Biosafor D14 - Socio-economic and environmental performance of promising
biosaline biomass supply chains and identification of sustainable biosaline biomass supply chains.
Utrecht: UU.
Wicke, B. R. (2010). Socio-economic and environmental performance of promising biosaline biomass
supply chains and identification of sustainable biosaline biomass supply chains, D14. Utrecht:
Biosafor, University of Utrecht.
Wicke, B. V. (2009). Biosafor D10, Systematic Approach to Characterize Saline Areas in Arid and
Semi-Arid Regions with Regard to Crop production Features, Biosafor D10. Utrecht: University of
Utrecht, Biosafor Project Deliverable 10.
Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & Smeets, E. (2009). Biosafor D11, GIS-based Global map of saline areas in arid
and semi arid regions and their characteristics. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Biosafor Deliverable 11.
Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & Smeets, E. (2010). Biosafor D12, Physical potentials of biomass production on
saline areas and information about the location of saline biomass production. Utrecht: Utrecht
University, Biosafor Deliverable 12.
Wicke, B., Faaij, A., & Smeets, E. (2010). Biosafor D13, Economic potential of biomass production
on saline areas. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Biosafor Deliverable 13.
