OEU20110501 Final Activity Report Biosafor

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)

ii

Copyright 2011 BIOSAFOR Consortium

European Commission FP6 Project STREP Contract no 032502

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

[email protected]

www.biosafor.eu


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: [email protected]

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.


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


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.


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


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


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 .


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)

Relative Yield

R2 = 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)

Relative Yield

R2 = 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 in dS.m- 1)

Relative Yield

R2 = 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 in dS.m- 1)

Relative Yield

R2 = 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


8

Prosopis juliflora

Mean Annual Increase vs. ECe (mean)

y = -1.2847x + 52.615

R2 = 0.3801

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

ECe (mean) in dS/m

MAI (kg tree-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.


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.


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


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)


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


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)

Pro

du

cti

on

co

sts

(E

uro

GJ -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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


1

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

Acacia albida 1992

Acacia ampliceps 2001, 1999, 1995

Acacia auriculiformis 2000 2007 2006

Acacia cineraria Acacia farnesiana � 1992

Acacia indicar

Acacia leucophloea 2000

Acacia modesta 1992

Acacia nilotica 1995 2000 2002 1998, 2002 � � 1992 2001 ,2003 2002 1996, 1994 1993

Acacia senegal 2001 2002 Acacia stenophylla 1988

Acacia tortilis � 1992 2001, 2003

Albezia Procera/lebbek 2000 1992 1980 1998

Anthocephalu Cadamba 2000

Azadirachta indica 1995 2000 1982 1992

Callistemon lanceolatus 1992 Capparis aphylla 2003

Cassia fistula 2000 1992

Cassia. siamea 1995

Casuarina obesa/glauca 1994, 1987 �

Casuarina equisetifolia 1995 2000 � � 2007, 1997

1998

Casuarina cunninghamiana

Cordia rothi 2000

Dalbergia sissoo 2000 1992 1997

Eucalyptus camaludensis 1987, 2002 1996, 1995, 1998, 2000

� 1993 2000

Eucalyptus citridora 1998

Eucalyptus microtheca 1991

Eucalyptus tereticornis 1995 2000 � � 1992

Feronia limonia 1992 Guazuma ulmifolia 1992

Kigelia pinnata 2000

Leucaena leucocephala �

Melia azedarach 1992

Parkinsonia aculeata 2000 �

Phoenix dactylifera 1992 1993 1993, 1986 1993 Pithecellobium dulce 1995 2000 1992


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


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.

Documents

OEU20110501 Final Activity Report Biosafor