Next Article in Journal
Inhibition of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Formation During Supercritical Water Gasification of Sewage Sludge by H2O2 Combined with Catalyst
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Current Situation and Sustainable Development Measures for Urban–Rural Water Supply Integration in Yunnan Province, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/w16223234
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reclamation and Improvement of Saline Soils Using Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources, Treated Saline Water, and Drip Irrigation Technology

by
Nahla A. Hemdan
1,*,
Soad M. El-Ashry
1,
Sameh Kotb Abd-Elmabod
1,2,
Zhenhua Zhang
3,4,*,
Hani A. Mansour
5 and
Magdy Attia
6
1
Soils & Water Use Department, Agricultural and Biological Research Institute, National Research Centre, Cairo 12622, Egypt
2
Agriculture and Food Research Council, Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Cairo 11562, Egypt
3
Institute of Jiangsu Coastal Agricultural Sciences, Yancheng 224002, China
4
School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
5
Water Relations and Field Irrigation Department, Agricultural and Biological Research Institute, National Research Centre, Cairo 12622, Egypt
6
Agricultural Microbiology Department, Agricultural and Biological Research Institute, National Research Centre, Cairo 12622, Egypt
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(22), 3234; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16223234
Submission received: 15 August 2024 / Revised: 3 November 2024 / Accepted: 6 November 2024 / Published: 10 November 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reclamation and management of saline soil in arid regions fundamentally require more consideration to attain sustainable agriculture. Experiments were conducted at Abo-Kalam Farm, South Sinai, Egypt. Split-split-plot design experiments were carried out to study the effect of treatments on saline soil hydrophysical properties, sorghum, and cv. ‘Dorado’ plants during the summer season. Pea cv. ‘Entsar 3’ plants were cultivated during the winter season for the residual effect of treatments. Organo–mineral amendment (rice straw compost + mineral sulfur at different rates) was assigned as the main factor, natural rock or artificial fertilizers were assigned as subfactors, and humic acid at different rates was the sub-subfactor. Results showed that organo–mineral amendments improved the hydrophysical properties of the soil, plant nutrient uptake, crop yield, and crop water productivity; however, it diminished by 10 tons/fed (4200 m2) of compost plus 700 kg/fed of mineral sulfur. Therefore, it is recommended that economically using the combination of applying organic–mineral amendments of 4 tons/fed of compost plus 400 kg/fed of mineral sulfur and 5 kg/fed of humic acid plus natural rock fertilizer is the best safe management for reclamation and improvement of saline soils using partially treated saline irrigation water and natural resources.

1. Introduction

Salt stress is the greatest challenge for agricultural developments in arid and semiarid climate zones. In order to achieve food security, the focus should be on increasing both the agriculture area and crop production. Land holdings are decreasing due to intense urbanization on agricultural lands [1,2]. Restoring degraded lands, including salt-affected soils, creates increased agricultural land area potential. Hopefully, food security will continue to be upheld by the consistent research efforts to manage and reclaim such soils. Resources and quality of water are also vital for crop production. Agriculture uses ~70% of total freshwater, mainly owing to crop irrigation. Desalination technologies of saline water are promising for irrigation to relieve freshwater scarcity [3,4,5]. Haggag et al. [6] and others found that biochar and compost can improve the yield of plants irrigated with saline water under saline soil conditions.
The utilization of natural resources is a crucial issue in arid regions to mitigate the influences of climate change and desertification. Soil salinity was the main problem that caused land desertification in the Sinai Peninsula [7]. Improvements in the soil’s physical properties are requisite to enhance soil quality [8]. Critical crop plant growth and development improved using economic nutrient management in diverse environments [8,9], and the application of varied substitutes associated with soil, nutrient, and irrigation management. Relatively, substituting artificial nitrogen fertilizer with farmyard manure yields the most significant prospective greenhouse gas (GHG) decreases. However, conversion to drip irrigation systems attains substantial prospective increases in water productivity. Effective management changes can inform decision-makers and farmers to make agriculture more sustainable [9].
Sulfur sufficiency and adaptation to salt stress modulate salinity-induced response. The reclamation efficiency of elemental sulfur is apparent and shown in a substantial decrease in the toxic salt contents’ (sodium bicarbonate and carbonate) appearance and accumulation in the soil of considerable amounts of sulfate and sodium ions with the subsequent formation and accumulation of neutral salt, sodium sulfate, promoting a significant decrease in alkalinity of the soil [10].
The principle behind using phosphate rock and elemental sulfur accumulations is that the inoculated or native population of soil bacteria oxidizes elemental sulfur to sulfur acid when applied to the soil. Thus, the dissolution of phosphate rock in soil is assisted by localized acidulation. Humic matter increases phosphorus availability to plants by competing and creating a protective coating of the sites of phosphate sorption in the soil [11]. The management of potassium sources needs more attention due to their bulky nature and their impact on the soil pH. In addition, their nutrient content and solubility are low. Potassium content in manures and compost is soluble and available for plant uptake. Some potassium rocks may be a source of plant requirements, but many have insolubility [12].
An improvement in saline soils’ physical and chemical properties may be realized by rationalizing soil amendments and using suitable farming applications. Soil amendments used for saline soil reclamation vary in the arrays, the process, and the characterization. Compost frequently provides needed nutrients for plants (N, P, and K), restructures soil physical–chemical properties, and reinstitutes the microbial community in the soil [13,14].
Sorghum is a C4 plant with a high photosynthesis efficacy and a capacity to produce large amounts of biomass. Sorghum has been used in human food, animal feed, agroenergy, and agromaterials. Sorghum is an excellent crop to use to deal with climate change, restricted natural resources, and conflicts between food and energy crops. It is highly recognized as an alternative for bioenergy production and withstands environmental pressures, climate fluctuations, and soil types. This crop can be subject to abiotic stress and requires few inputs, thus making marginal lands more valuable and sustainable [15,16]. The increase in world population, accompanied by the decrease in biomass resources, may force the reassessment of the complete value chain of this crop [15].
AquaCrop is adequate for modeling yields. AquaCrop was created using two programs called ‘AquaData’ and ‘AquaGIS.’ AquaData contains a database that includes all data for input files needed in AquaCrop. FAO has advanced an AquaCrop program for running without a user interface, allowing AquaData to perform various crop simulations efficiently and automatically [17]. The AquaCrop program can be used by the Geographical Information System (GIS) for consequent spatial analysis and for evaluating climate change influences on crop yields in the long term.
The main limitation of natural resources in arid regions is water, and there is a marginal capacity for potential expansion and development. Groundwater is available in aquifers of varying capacities and qualities. Groundwater includes several shallow and deep reservoirs [18,19]. Using saline irrigation water is an essential means of relieving freshwater scarcity. However, continuing saline water irrigation may cause salt accumulation in the root zone and increase the risk of soil salinization. Desalination technologies for agricultural irrigation are crucial to confront freshwater requirements in arid regions [20,21].
It was hypothesized that the reclamation and management of saline soils’ under-treated saline water under drip irrigation technologies would be related to (1) using different rates of humic acid, fertilizer sources, and (compost + sulfur); (2) significant amendment and improvement of soil properties; and (3) high sorghum and pea vegetative growths and yields. Previous studies focused on one or two amendments, and the novelty of this investigation is the study of combining soil organo–mineral–natural amendments to achieve integral reclamation and improvement of saline soil using partially treated saline water and drip irrigation technology. Therefore, this investigation was carried out to (1) study the effect of rice straw compost, sulfur, fertilizer type, and humic acid on soil characteristics; (2) compare the impact of rock phosphate and feldspar with artificial fertilizers as sources of phosphorus and potassium, respectively; and (3) examine the effect of studied treatments on growth parameters, yield component, and yield of sorghum and pea crops irrigated with partially treated saline water, and thus determine crop water productivity and its calibration by the AquaCrop model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The El-Tor area is located at latitude 28°14′30.05″ N, longitude 33°37′19.92″ E in the South of Sinai. The Sinai Peninsula covers about 6% of Egypt’s area, as shown in Figure 1. According to the soil taxonomy that was developed by the United States Soil Conservation Services (USSCS), Entisols and Aridisols are the main groups of soil in the Sinai Peninsula. Agriculture and urbanization are restricted due to freshwater scarcity in Sinai, whereas the population occupies the western coastline comparatively well [7]. Table 1 shows the soil analysis of the study area.

2.2. Irrigation Water

Egypt, particularly Sinai, is among the countries with freshwater scarcity. Elewa and Qaddah [19] declared that the Sinai Peninsula has almost a temperate groundwater capability, where this class involves an area of 33,120 km2 (52% of the Sinai area).
Shalaby et al. [22] developed, observed, and assessed a prototype of a comprehensive system for desalinating groundwater at the Abo-Kalam Farm in Sinai, Egypt. They utilized a desalination unit with high recovery, low-pressure inverse osmosis, and electrochemical disinfection technology. Shalaby et al. [22] showed that the salt rejection reached 94.6% after using the desalination unit. The permeate water is mixed with treated desalinated water to modify irrigation water salinity ranging from 800 to 1000 ppm. Table 2 indicates the analysis of saline water in the Abo-Kalam well before and after using the desalination system.

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments

Experiments were conducted at Abo-Kalam Farm in the El-Tor area in South Sinai during the summer of 2015. Compost was produced by recycling and composting rice straw wastes in heaps that were turned periodically for 3 months until they reached maturity. Sorghum grains (Dorado short variety) were planted in the summer on 28 May 2015, and were harvested on 28 October 2015. Pea seeds (Entsar 3 variety) were planted in the winter on 26 October 2015, and harvested on 3 March 2016, to investigate the residual effect of the studied treatments. Experiments were designed as a split-split-plot with three experimental factors, as in the graph illustrated in Figure 2.
Organic–mineral amendments (compost + sulfur) are a main factor in all treatments to reclaim this saline soil, including the control (artificial fertilizer without humic acid). Organic–mineral amendments and natural or artificial fertilizer were physically combined and incorporated in the 30 cm deep soil, while humic acid was added to the soil after 45 days of sorghum plantation. The experimental plot area was 3 m2, the replicate area was 1 m2, and the number of replicates was 3 CS × 2 FR or PK × 3 H × 3 replicates = 72 replicates.
Table 3 shows the chemical analysis of compost where the compost sample was digested. Some elements (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn, B, Zn, Ni, Cd, and Pb) were measured by ICP (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy) [24] while O.M and O.C were determined using loss-on-ignition (LOI) according to [23]. N was determined using the modified micro-Kjeldahl method [25].
However, Figure 3 illustrates the chemical function groups’ intensity for sulfur, rock phosphate, feldspar, and humic acid by FTIR spectroscopy, respectively. Using FTIR spectroscopy, obtained spectrograms illustrate the location of peaks for function groups, their intensity, width, and shape in the wave number range in the natural rocks and materials in the reclamation and the improvement of the saline soil (sulfur, rock phosphate, feldspar, and humic acid) [26]. P2O74−, PO43− groups in rock phosphate as a phosphorus source, while feldspar, as a potassium source, absorbs less than quartz. Acidify groups in sulfur and humic acid contribute localized acidulation, ease the solubility of natural rocks [11], and replace the Na salts in the saline soil solution [10]. In addition, CaCO3 as a source of Ca is presented in rock phosphate and sulfur could exchange with Na on surfaces’ saline soil particles (Figure 3). The existence of carboxyl groups in humic acid can enhance the separation of metal cations from various media, as well as ion exchange and complex formation. Humic acids have acidic, hydrophilic, cation exchange, and adsorption functions due to containing various function groups [27].

2.4. Field Practices and Cultivation

The studied saline soil was prepared by soil ploughing and leveling, and then the laterals of a drip irrigation system were applied before the sorghum plantation. Sorghum grains were cultivated in two soil holes around each emitter to investigate the effect of the studied treatments in the summer season. Four grains were planted in each hole and then reduced to two plants after three weeks from the planting date. The distances between holes, emitters, and laterals were 0.25, 0.25, and 0.50 m, respectively. Potassium feldspar, phosphate rock, and sulfur were mixed with rice straw compost and incorporated into the soil before planting sorghum. However, humic acid was added before the blooming growth stage of sorghum. Pea seeds (Entsar 3 variety) were planted on 26 October 2015, and harvested on 3 March 2016, to examine the residual effect of the studied treatments.

2.5. Irrigation Water Requirements

A drip irrigation system was used for sorghum and pea plants as four emitters per m2, and the emitter charge was 2 L/h. The irrigation water applied was 3500 m3/fed (100% of irrigation water requirement IW) for sorghum plants in the summer season but 1740 m3/fed (100% of IW) for pea plants in the winter season calculated according to [28] and the following equation [29]:
IW = ((ETo × KC × Kr × I)/Ea × (1 − LR)) × 4.2
where IW acts as a requirement for irrigation water m3/fed, ETo is reference evapotranspiration, Kc is crop coefficient = 1.1 for sorghum and 0.85 for pea, Kr is the evaporation-reduction coefficient = 0.85, I is the irrigation interval = 2 days for the sorghum plant and 3 days for the pea plant, Ea is irrigation efficiency = 90%, and LR is leaching requirement = 20% of the total water amount.

2.6. Plant Data Collection and Analysis

In three replicates, samples of sorghum and pea plants were taken from every treatment at harvest. Measurements of plant growth characteristics, such as plant height, fresh weight, dry weight, yield components, and total yield, were documented. The leaves of the sorghum plant were collected randomly. They were then dried at 70 °C until a consistent weight was achieved. After that, the leaves were finely crushed and subjected to digestion in a solution containing perchloric and sulfuric acids in a ratio of 1:3 (volume/volume). This process was carried out to detect the presence of certain elements. The percentage of total nitrogen was determined using the modified micro-Kjeldahl method. Phosphorus was estimated using a spectrophotometer, and potassium, sodium, and calcium were measured using a flame photometer [25].

2.7. Determination of Soil Properties

Three composite soil samples were collected from the initial soil at a depth of 30 cm. These samples were used to analyze the chemical and hydrophysical parameters of the soil before crop cultivation. Moisture retention was determined using a pressure membrane extractor [30]. Soil samples from each plot were taken after the crop season’s end to measure the soil’s hydrophysical and physical characteristics, including bulk density. The bulk density measurement was used to determine the total porosity and the void ratio [31].
The saline soil samples’ saturated hydraulic conductivity was measured according to Darcy law using fresh tap water (EC = 0.4 dS−1) under a constant hydraulic head (m/day) at the laboratory. Soil cores are placed vertically and preserved by a porous outflow surface. Usually, a drain pipe from a constant-level storage provides a low level of water over the soil’s surface as described by [30,32]
HC = HAT/QL
where HC is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil, Q is the water volume used over the soil column at the time (T), L is the soil column length, H is the hydraulic head, and A is the cross-sectional area. Soil mean pore diameter (μm) was calculated according to [33] as follows:
d = (6.177637√HC
where d is the mean diameter of soil pores (μ) and HC is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil (m/day).

2.8. Crop Water Productivity

AquaCrop is a simulation model developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It evaluates crop productivity and water resource sustainability under different environmental and management conditions. This study used the AquaCrop model to obtain the simulated crop water productivities of sorghum and pea crop yields by applying the studied treatments.
AquaCrop requires five weather input variables: daily maximum and minimum atmospheric temperatures (T), daily precipitation, daily reference evapotranspiration (ETo), and the average annual concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The most significant benefit of AquaCrop is that it takes only a small amount of accessible input data. AquaCrop contains reference values of many crop parameters, which it utilizes to simulate various crops. However, some of these characteristics must be adapted to regions, varieties, and farming applications. Simulated crop water productivities were calculated according to FAO paper 66 (AquaCrop model version 6) [34] with the following:
WP = (B/Σ (Tr/ETo)) (CO2)
where B is the cumulative biomass produced (kg/m2) for most crops; Tr is the crop transpiration (m3), with the summation over the period in which the biomass is produced; and WP is the water productivity (kg/m3). All AquaCrop model parameters with their values of sorghum and pea crops are shown in Tables S1 and S2. Minimum data input calibration was applied using data in Table 4 Climate, soil, and sorghum crop files were the main inputs for the model. Hydraulic and physical characteristics of soil were used to develop the soil file in the AquaCrop model. Figure S1 shows soil water stress as the input for the calibration by the AquaCrop model for sorghum at the Abo-Kalam area at Tor, Sinai.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Obtained data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA (three factors: split-split-plot) according to [35], via the CoStat Software Program Version 6.303 (2004). The Tukey–Kramer test and LSD (0.05) (least significant degree) were utilized for the comparison amongst means of the variables. The Supplementary File contains ANOVA tables, standard errors, standard deviations, and correlation (Tables S3–S15).

2.10. Economic Analysis

Net profit was determined according to the local price in Egypt in 2024 by the following equation [36] as shown in Tables S15 and S16:
Net profit = Total profit of output − Total costs for inputs

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Sorghum Crop During the Summer Season

Regarding the general individual effect of studied factors on some growth parameters, yield components, and total yield of sorghum (Figure 4), the study shows that using organic–mineral amendments can significantly affect sorghum yield. Specifically, applying 6 tons/fed of compost and 500 kg of sulfur (C2S2) increased plant height, fresh plant weight, and dry plant weight. Therefore, the decreases in the rates of organic–mineral amendments produced increases in the sorghum panicle and biomass yields.
C2S2 produced the highest values for all parameters of sorghum. However, the increase was insignificant compared with applying 4 tons of compost and 400 kg of sulfur (C1S1). Furthermore, the increase in the artificial fertilizer (PK) was insignificant relative to natural rock fertilizers (rock phosphate and potassium feldspar) (FR). In contrast, increased humic acid rates in the soil led to significant increases in plant height and yield.
Concerning the dual effect of studied factors, the plants reached their maximum height and weight when PK + H3 were added. However, the increase was not substantial compared to the use of FR + H3. C2S2 + PK that resulted in the greatest average fresh plant weight. Nevertheless, the increase was negligible compared to the effects of C2S2 + FR.
Furthermore, the study examined the triple effect of the organic–mineral amendment (compost + sulfur), natural rock fertilizers, and humic acid; the results in Table 5 and Figure 5 reveal variations across these studied factors. The plants with the highest sorghum biomass yield (tons/fed) were achieved by C2S2 ± FR + H3. However, there were insignificant differences in yield between C2S2 ± FR + H3 and C1S1 ± FR + H3. Hence, C1S1FRH2 could be the optimal combination.
Regarding the impact of organic–mineral amendments on nutrient concentrations in sorghum plants, the highest concentration of nitrogen percentage in the sorghum plant leaves (3.82%) was achieved by using a combination of C2S2FRH3, while P%, K%, Na%, Ca%, K/Na ratio, Ca/Na ratio, and Ca/K Na ratio were 0.247, 1.77, 0.312, 0.483, 5.68, 1.58, and 0.237%, respectively.
Moreover, for C1S1FRH2, the concentrations of N%, P%, K%, Na%, Ca%, K/Na ratio, Ca/Na ratio, and Ca/K Na ratio in the sorghum plant leaves achieved 3.19, 0.186, 1.54, 0.213, 0.542, 7.27, 2.61, and 0.315%, respectively. The highest phosphorus and potassium values were 0.260% and 2.51% for C1S1FRH3 and C2S2FRH2, respectively. On the other hand, the greatest salt buildup in the soil led to the highest accumulation of sodium (0.617%) in sorghum leaves, which was recorded by C4S4PKH2.
Regarding plant nutrient uptake, it could be observed that C2S2FRH3 achieved their maximum levels at 38.86 kg/fed of nitrogen uptake, followed by C1S1FRH3 (35.26 kg/fed), and C2S2FRH2 had the highest potassium uptake value of 20.76 kg fed−1. C1S1FRH3 had 18.68 kg/fed but these differences were insignificant. C1S1FRH3 achieved the maximum phosphorus uptake value of 2.61 kg/fed, whereas C2S2FRH3 had a slightly lower value of 2.51 kg/fed (Table 6). Moreover, Table 7 and Table 8 show positive correlations among sorghum biomass yield, sorghum growth parameters, and plant nutrient uptake of nitrogen and potassium using the studied treatments.

3.2. Residual Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Pea Crop During the Winter Season

Notably, the pea crop was sown after the sorghum harvest under no soil tillage during the winter. As shown in Table 9 and Figure 6, organic–mineral amendment levels markedly influenced the pea growth and yield performance and crop water productivity; the most influential factors on pea production were compost, sulfur, and natural rock amendments rather than humic acid levels and artificial fertilizers; and significant differences were observed in pea growth parameters, yield components, and pod yield affected by the residual pre-applied treatments in the previous summer season. The residual general individual effects indicated that using organic–mineral amendments significantly improved pea pod yield. Plant length, fresh plant, and dry plant weight increased by decreasing organic–mineral amendments (compost and sulfur) to 6 tons/fed. Therefore, the reduction in the rate of organic–mineral amendments considerably increased pea pod yields under saline soil conditions.
C2S2 attained the highest values of all parameters, but the increase was insignificant compared to C1S1. In contrast, humic acid did not have a positive residual individual effect on pea yield. In comparison, the rise in pea pod yield was evident by the residual individual effects of applying natural rock fertilizers (rock phosphate and potassium feldspar) compared with artificial fertilizer. Moreover, C2S2FRH1 attained the highest pea yield components and pod yield values. However, C4S4FRH1 recorded the lowest ones.

3.3. Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Saline Soil Hydrophysical Properties

It is worth noting that all saline soil properties studied were assessed using fresh tap water (EC = 0.4 dSm−1) in the laboratory. While in the field experiments, sorghum and peas were planted in saline soil and irrigated with partially treated saline water. Regarding the general impact at an individual level, compared to the soil that did not receive humic acid, the total porosity, void ratio, soil moisture saturation, hydraulic and conductivity, and mean diameter of the soil pore were increased by applying 5 and 10 kg/fed of humic acid. These increments were 3.9 and 7.58%, 7.76 and 16%, 8.68 and 15%, 82.5 and 162.5%, and 33.8 and 61.11%, respectively. In comparison, the decrements in soil bulk density were 3.8 and 7.63% for applying 5 and 10 kg/fed of humic acid, respectively. Additionally, compost with sulfur increased the total porosity, void ratio, soil moisture saturation, hydraulic conductivity, and mean diameter of the soil pore. The increases were observed to be (8.6; 12.7; 7.1%), (18.7; 28.1; 15.6%), (5.1; 22.1; 3%) (650.1; 568.7; 200%), and (170.8; 148.3; 70.8%), respectively While soil bulk decreased density by 7.4, 12.6, and 8.88% for C1S1, C2S2, and C3S3 comparing to C4S4 in sequence.
Regarding the triple effect of the treatments shown in Table 10 and Figure 7, it is evident that during the summer, C2S2PKH3 achieved the highest crop yield and significantly improved the soil properties. C2S2PKH3 recorded 1.13 mg/m3 for bulk density, 57.23% for total porosity, 1.34 for void ratio, 49.29% for soil water saturation, 1.89 m/day for saturated hydraulic conductivity, and 4.16 µm for mean diameter of the pore. It was followed by C2S2FRH3, which had a bulk density of 1.17 mg/m3, a total porosity of 55.92%, a void ratio of 1.27, a soil water saturation of 48%, a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.92 m/day, and a mean diameter of the pore of 4.19 µm. Figure 8 demonstrates that the variations in sorghum water productivity were consistent with the differences in saturated hydraulic conductivity in the soil and of the potassium and nitrogen concentrations in plant leaves at the harvest stage. However, the sodium concentrations were not in accordance with this. Moreover, the sorghum biomass yield positively correlates with hydrophysical properties except for bulk density, as shown in Table 11.

3.4. Residual Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Saline Soil Hydrophysical Properties

As shown in Table 12 and Figure 9, as a general view, the residual effects of incorporating the compost, sulfur, and humic acid in the soil during the previous season led to improved physical and hydrophysical properties of the soil where a decrease in its bulk density and increments in total porosity, saturation percentage, hydraulic conductivity, and mean diameter of the soil pore compared with the soil properties of the initial soil and the previous season could be observed. However, these improvements in the soil did not produce a high crop yield in C3S3. The residual effects of humic acid (5 kg/fed) affect the soil bulk density (1.18 mg/m3), total porosity (55.36%), void ratio (1.24), soil water saturation (42.66%), saturated hydraulic conductivity (3.02 m/day), and mean diameter of the pore (10.33 µm) but did not increase pea pod yield in the winter season.
On the other hand, the individual residual effects of none humic acid with soil bulk density (1.23 mg/m3), total porosity (53.48%), void ratio (1.16), soil water saturation (42.13%), saturated hydraulic conductivity (2.31 m/day), and mean diameter of the pore (8.93 µm) produced the highest pea pod yield. For compost and sulfur, the individual residual effects of C3S3 enhanced the soil bulk density (1.14 mg/m3), total porosity (56.71%), void ratio (1.31), soil water saturation (45.77%), saturated hydraulic conductivity (4.34 m/day), and mean diameter of the pore (12.35 µm) but the residual effects of C2S2 attained the highest pea pod yield under a soil bulk density of 1.17 Mg/m3, a total porosity of 55.73%, a void ratio of 1.26, a soil water saturation of 41.05%, a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 2.38 m/day, and a mean pore diameter of 9.01 µm.
Although the residual of C2S2FRH3 improved soil characteristics, it did not reflect on pea pod yield. C2S2FRH3 significantly influenced the soil properties. Specifically, the soil had a bulk density of 1.13 mg/m3, a total porosity of 57.42%, a void ratio of 1.35, a soil water saturation of 40.51%, a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 3.44 m/day, and a mean diameter of the pore of 11.46 µm.
Whereas it was observed that C2S2FRH1 achieved the highest pod yield resulting in a soil bulk density of 1.22 mg/m3, a total porosity of 53.90%, a void ratio of 1.17, a soil water saturation of 40.44%, a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 0.63 m/day, and a mean diameter of the pore of 4.90 µm.

3.5. Evaluation of Crop Water Productivity

The study assessed the water productivity of sorghum and pea crops. The predicted biomass yield data obtained by the AquaCrop model were tested and compared with that observed and measured in the field experiments. Table 5 and Figure 10 demonstrate the impact of C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4 on observed and simulated sorghum biomass water productivity (WP) under the 100% irrigation water requirement of sorghum. The highest values of observed and simulated water productivity were 4.33 and 4.54 kg/m3 using C2S2 followed by 4.07 and 4.28 kg/m3 using C1S1, while the lowest ones were 3.38 and 3.59 kg/m3 using C4S4.
Observed and simulated WP by AquaCrop recorded the highest values under the artificial fertilizer (3.96; 4.20 kg/m3), followed by the natural rock fertilizer (3.81; 4.00 kg/m3), respectively. Moreover, the highest values of observed and simulated WP were 4.34 and 4.61 kg/m3 using 10 kg/fed of humic acid, followed by 3.89 and 4.19 kg/m3 with 5 kg/fed of humic acid. Regarding the triple effect, the combination of C2S2PKH3 resulted in the highest values of observed and simulated sorghum water productivity followed by C2S2FRH3. In the comparison, the combination of C2S2FRH1 attained the highest values of observed and simulated pea water productivity.
In the winter season, the residual effect of compost with sulfur on pea pod water productivity, C2S2 had the highest values of observed and simulated WP (2.89; 3.03 kg/m3), followed by C1S1 (0.86; 1.22 kg/m3). Observed and simulated WP by AquaCrop recorded the highest values under natural fertilizer type (0.76; 1.12 kg/m3). Additionally, none humic acid gave the highest value of observed and simulated WP (0.88; 1.30 kg/m3), followed by 5 kg/fed of humic acid (0.68; 1.01 kg/m3).

3.6. Economic Analysis of the Studied Experiments

Data shown in Tables S16 and S17 and illustrated in Figure 11 explain the costs of input of the experiments and the effect and the residual of the organo–mineral–natural resources on total profits and net profits for sorghum and pea crops; sorghum grain and sorghum biological yield were used as a forage, while pea pod yield for local food consumption, and pea biological yield as a forage in Egypt in 2024. According to the local sale prices, the maximum net profit was obtained by C2S2FRH1 (125,517.06 LE), followed by C2S2PKH3 (121,792.71 LE), although the maximum total profit was attained by C2S2PKH3 (171,967.71 LE). However, the minimum net profit was recorded by C4S4FRH1.

4. Discussion

Due to the detrimental effect on soil fertility and crop water uptake, soil salinity is becoming a global threat. On average, 418 million hectares of soil are salinized. Numerous factors related to climate, geomorphology, and rainfall patterns contribute to the formation of saline soil. It is necessary to manage salty soil to lessen its toxic effects properly. One other big issue with managing soil salinity is irrigation water. Salinity in the root zone of crops significantly affects soil fertility and nutrient uptake, and soil water depletion negatively impacts crop yields considerably [6,37].
The decreases in crop productivity attributed to rain-fed and irrigated agriculture are caused by salinized soil and saline water supplies. Prolonged saline water use causes potential risks, such as salt buildup in the soil profile over time. Crop productivity could improve whether this saltwater fluid is partially desalinated [38]. Moreover using drip irrigation technology confronts the salinity in the soil, where soil salinity is decreased in the root zone and transported away to the wetting front under drip irrigation [28,39].
Salinity impacts soil biodiversity and microflora, which changes the soil’s physicochemical properties and causes the loss of organic matter. Soil salinity restricts the plant‘s abscisic acid production, thus reducing the photosynthetic process, leading to stress in oxidation and osmosis, an increase in the toxic ions, a deficiency in the nutrients, and ultimately, an inhabitation in the plant growth. Yukun et al. [5] evaluated the effect of soil salinity on the sorghum growth and soil microbiota. The sorghum phenolic compounds significantly influence microbial diversity in the soil. Therefore, the cultivation of sorghum plays a vital role in reforming the microbial community in saline soil; these effects depend on the variety of sorghum.
Soil deterioration is a continual process, amplified by the consequences of the changing climate. As a result, these activities reduce organic matter and nutrient levels, biological activities in the soil, and plant productivity. Organic amendments improve soil quality and health; incorporating organic material enhances the soil structure, moisture retention, microbiota, and nutrient availability [40].

4.1. Effects of Organo–Mineral Resources (Compost and Sulfur)

The physical combination of compost and sulfur resulted in the reclamation and improvement of the studied area of saline soil up to C2S2. However, it could be observed that a combination of C1S1 is the optimal application to rationalize using soil amendments. In comparison, all variables gradually declined when compost and sulfur increased from C3S3 to C4S4. Composting is a preferred approach to recycling wastes to lessen the environmental risks. Additionally, compost as an organic matter source is critical for maintaining soil fertility, retaining soil moisture and plant nutrients, and enhancing the soil’s chemical and physical characteristics [41]. Hueso-González et al. [42] evaluated the strategy of utilizing organic amendments in dryland areas. Soil amendments should be added adequately to the soil.
Organic substances speed up the soil recovery and restore the land. Organic amendments affect the mechanisms of soil genesis and create new organo–mineral complexes and carbon footprints, where compost and plant crop residue increase soil carbon sequestration [43]. However, soil microbial activity increases organic matter decomposition, which may lead to significant soil organic carbon losses [44,45]. The increase in soil organic carbon can lead to an increase in cation exchange capacity, an improvement in infiltration, and a reduction in the runoff [40]. On the other hand, compost and biochar can improve saline soil. Still, biochar may be more effective than compost in saline soil with a high groundwater table, where biochar increases soil aeration. In contrast, compost decreases and causes salt accumulation or denitrification in the soil [6,37].
Sulfur boosted the reclamation efficiency, thereby decreasing the appearance of soil toxic salts (sodium bicarbonate and carbonate) and an accumulation of sulfate and sodium ions in the soil. Therefore, the accumulation of sodium sulfate as a neutral salt resulted in a decline in the soil alkalinity. However, only from one-fifth to one-third parts of the application sulfur passed to oxidic forms; the rest of the sulfur fully oxidized in the course of periodic removal of secondary salts according to full desalinization and desolonetzification and created the neutral environment in the soil. Thus, the soil can reserve gypsum stock by sulfur application in C1S1 and C2S2, resulting from the interaction between soil carbonates and sulfuric acid [10]. In addition, sodium bicarbonate and carbonate in the soil can convert to sulfate and sodium ions in the soil solution, and then the neutral salt of sodium sulfate, significantly decreasing the soil pH [10] as follows:
2NaHCO3 + H2SO4 → Na2SO4 + 2H2O + 2CO2
Na2CO3 + H2SO4 → Na2SO4 + CO2 + H2O
CaCO3 + H2SO4 → CaSO4 + CO2 + H2O
Sulfur combined with nitrogen fertilizer enhanced nitrogen use efficiency and maintained nutrient availability and corn growth in the soil. Freitas et al. [46] perceived that under salt stress, the soil salinity decreases the nutrient contents in the plant, but added sulfur in saline soil increased the plant photosynthesis and efficient antioxidative system and improved phosphorus and potassium uptake; however, the Na+/K+ ratio in the leaves of the plant membrane damage was decreased. It could be deduced from this study and previous studies that sulfur and gypsum can amend saline soils, but sulfur has more benefits than gypsum in saline soil with high amounts of calcium and magnesium.
On the other hand, the excess of organic matter in the soil and the irrigation of plants with 100% of crop water requirements, such as in C4S4, negatively impacted the soil and the plants. This may be through the dissimilation of sulfate reduction, and sulfate was adapted to sulfide by sulfate-reducing bacteria under anaerobic conditions where the respiration of bacteria use sulfate as the electron acceptor. Organic matter worked as a donor of the electrons that are usually organic compounds, ultimately, hydrogen [10,47] as follows:
8H2 + 2SO42− → H2S + HS− + 5H2O + 3OH−

4.2. Effects of Natural Resources (Rock Phosphate and Potassium Feldspar)

It could be observed that artificial fertilizer was higher than natural resources (rock phosphate and potassium feldspar) in sorghum biomass yield during the summer, but the increases were insignificant. In contrast, the residual effect of natural rocks (rock phosphate and potassium feldspar) increased more than the residual effect of the artificial fertilizer in pea pod yield during the winter due to the slow release of potassium and phosphorus from natural rocks [12]. Various methods of solubilizing phosphorus from rock phosphate include physical treatments, chemical treatments, and the application of microorganisms; one is the application of organic acids. Since citric acid is a tricarboxylic acid, it can be a perfect chelating agent with metal cations [48].
Demand for potassium fertilizers has been prompted by food security concerns worldwide. Potassium has an essential role in plant growth. Potassium fertilizers are obtained from a mining source in some Northern Hemisphere countries of the world. Potash is either overpriced or unobtainable in Southern Hemisphere countries. Feldspar is an aluminosilicate rock that contains potassium in its inter sites. However, the physicochemical reactions comprising feldspar dissolution and precipitation to secondary phases are undeveloped [49,50,51]. Lodi et al. [52] investigated the methods of enhancement of K-feldspar solubilization by the biological engineering process to improve potassium solubility and contribute to more sustainable agriculture. A partial substitute of artificial fertilizers with natural resources is ecologically recommended [53,54]. The organic acid in the soil can solubilize potassium complex forms to facilitate their absorption by plants [40]; soil acidification may increase, while the carbonate decreases by leaching away from the soil root zone followed by the soil pH decreasing abruptly. Therefore, the metal ions in rock phosphate and feldspar can release into the soil solution to be available for plant uptake; this may agree with Wang et al. [55].

4.3. Effect of Organic Fertilizer (Humic Acid)

Humic acid increased the growth parameters, yield components, sorghum biomass yield and nutrient concertation in the sorghum leaves in the summer season when compost and sulfur increased from C1S1 to C2S2, respectively. However, humic acid has almost no observed residual effect on pea plants in the winter season; this may be due to its interaction with salts and cations in the soil, where it may increase cation exchange capacity and nutrient availability for nutrient uptake by sorghum plants in the summer season. The humic acid mechanism influences various soil quality indicators; humic acid increases total and available nutrients, improves organic matter contents and enhances soil microbial activity in the soil, and in the interim, the enzyme activities markedly increase [56].

4.4. Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Saline Soil Properties

As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the initial soil properties explain that sandy loam soil suffers from salinity and is irrigated with partially desalinated water. Irrigation with low-quality water increases the soil sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), causing clay swelling, aggregate failure, permeability reduction, partial blocking, and clay dispersion. Swelling, aggregate failure, pore-size reduction, partial blocking, and the soil’s hydraulic conductivity are reduced. Fast wetting (slaking) and swelling without electrolytes seriously influence hydraulic conductivity, especially at intermediate levels of sodicity [57]. Klopp and Daigh [58] measured hydraulic conductivity and water retention. Fitting parameters were disagreed upon for treatments with more salinity. Considerable salt accumulation at the soil surface and stronger differences in fitting parameters for the various combinations of water retention methods were observed in coarser textured soil. In order to slow down the water flow and leaching of the salt, the capillary rise of salt-bearing fluids with a low EC and a high SAR increases the soil water retention close to the saturation and decreases the hydraulic conductivity.
This study found apparent differences among the tested treatments where C2S2PKH3 and C2S2FRH3 attained the lowest values of soil bulk density. The decline in soil bulk density following humic acid and compost amendments was reflected by the enlargement of total porosity, soil water retention, and mean diameter of the soil pore, as well as an increase in saturated hydraulic conductivity of saline soil, but the opposite is true in terms of increasing compost rates more than C2S2 (Table 10). Incorporating compost, sulfur, and humic acid as soil amendments enhanced the soil’s physical and hydrophysical properties (i.e., soil water retention and movement). These incorporated soil amendments in the saline soil decreased its bulk density but increased the total porosity, void ratio, soil moisture saturation percentage, drainable pores, hydraulic conductivity, and mean diameter of the soil pores compared to the initial soil [6,36]. On the other hand, the increments in compost and sulfur up to C4S4 negatively affected most of the hydrophysical soil properties. Soil and plants are greatly influenced by the soil amendments’ direct and indirect effects on their chemical, physical, and biological properties.
Organic amendments improve soil quality by enhancing the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Soil carbon storage can achieve more soil water retention, reduce nutrient and water losses, promote microbial communities and activities, and boost ecological diversity. In addition to improving the aeration and structure of the soil, organic matter enhances the pore size, decreases the bulk density, and stabilizes soil particles [40]. Compost and sulfur could boost soil organic matter and increase Ca cations in the soil solution phase and/or adsorbed surface of soil particles, and thus the soil aggregates can improve. Organic soil amendments can replace about 25–50% of synthetic fertilizers and improve nutrient use efficiency and crop yield response. In addition, compost increases soil organic carbon, increases available phosphorus, and improves total nitrogen [59]. This is advantageous for sequestering carbon and improving the soil health and crop yield.

4.5. Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Plants Under Saline Soils

Organic–mineral fertilizer (compost + sulfur), natural rock fertilizers that were physically mixed and incorporated in the saline soil, and humic acid that was added after 45 days of sorghum plantation resulted in variations in all sorghum crop parameters. The tallest plants had the highest sorghum biomass yield achieved with C2S2PKH3. On the other hand, the shortest ones had the lowest sorghum biomass yield recorded for C2S2PKH1. Soil salinity causes a complex mechanism that suppresses all plant physio–biochemical pathways, increases levels of Na+ accumulation, and motivates cytosolic K+ and Ca2+ efflux, and accordingly, leads to disparity in cellular homeostasis, insufficiency in nutrients, oxidative stress in biomarkers (e.g., O2 and H2O2), and restriction in plant growth. Salinity stress reduces root hydraulic conductivity and water flow inside the plant and suppresses plant growth and yield [60,61].
The increase in organic–mineral amendments up to C4S4 was the decrease in all plant parameters and yield. These effects may be attributable to the excess of organic amendments applied to the soil, which, with 100% of crop water requirements, causes soil moisture saturation and organic matter accumulation. These conditions result in a decrease in soil aeration and, subsequently, an increase in denitrification. In comparison to previous studies, soil salinity negatively affected the decomposition of organic matter in the soil; the negative effect of salinity on organic carbon mineralization was more significant in coarse soils than in fine soil. In coarse soil, the salinity-suppressed fungi consume the stable C pool, whereas in fine soil, the Gram-positive bacterial population was inhibited by increasing soil salinity [62].
Poor drainage frequently causes anaerobic soils to lower their chemical state and favor specific processes. The reduced soil layer has high soil bulk density. The transition stage from aerobic to anaerobic soils is accompanied by both the properties of aerobic and anaerobic environments [63]. Soil salinity and moisture play a main role in the regulation of denitrification in the soil [64].
Oh et al. [65] reported that the microbial species that caused denitrification under partial soil saturation (water saturation degree of 67%) were responsible for full soil saturation (100%). However, sulfur reduction occurred in the soil (analogous to denitrification) by changing sulfate to sulfide ions in saturation conditions. Sulfur redox is a significant factor in soil acidification, water drainage, and nutrient availability. Furthermore, mineral sulfur acidification can release phosphorus and potassium from natural rocks [66].
On the other hand, the excessive compost rate of C3S3 and humic acid with irrigation water (100% of crop water requirements) may increase soil organic matter, soil moisture saturation, drainable pores, and soil water seepages. These pre-increases led to an increase in nutrient loss by leaching, reflecting negatively on the residual effect of treatments on pea crops during the winter. Therefore, rationing organic amendments and irrigation water use is needed.

4.6. Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources on Crop Water Productivity

The combination of C2S2PKH3 recorded the highest values of observed and simulated sorghum water productivity, followed by C2S2FRH3. In the comparison, the combination of C2S2FRH1 attained the highest values of observed and simulated pea water productivity. Incorporating organic amendments in the sandy soil amended the hydrophysical properties (i.e., the moisture content, the water movement, and the structure in the soil). Therefore, organic soil amendments enhanced the plant nutrient uptake and growth parameters of sorghum and pea. Consequently, the development of crop yield components increased crop water productivity [67]. Ma et al. [68] showed that sulfur improved summer yield and maize water use. Sulfur significantly enhanced aboveground biomass, grain yield, and crop water productivity. AquaCrop’s simulation of crop water productivity provides a powerful indicator for farmers, researchers, and policymakers to enhance agricultural productivity and manage water resources sustainably [34].

4.7. Economic Evaluation for the Effect of Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources

C2S2PKH3 attained the maximum value of total profit, while C2S2FRH1 gave the maximum value of net profit. It could be noticed that C1S1FRH2 achieved 158,827.50 LE of total profit and 116,297.50 LE of net profit with insignificant differences. Sorghum biomass yield was financially evaluated as a forage in this study, but applying the studied soil organic mineral amendments in other comparable regions with saline soil conditions, sorghum biomass yield as a bioenergy source may be more profitable. On the other hand, for pea crops as the output of the residual effect of the soil amendments studied, increasing the demand of pea pod yield for local food consumption and pea biological yield for feed led to rising their prices, which in turn achieved growth of net profit.
It is common knowledge that adding organic amendments to the soil from industrial, municipal, agricultural, or urban activities provides a variety of agronomic and ecological advantages. This addition can be an effective strategy to keep or even raise soil organic carbon, enhance physical characteristics like soil porosity and aggregate stability, and enrich nutrients like N, P, and K in the soil. Moreover, minimizing the high fossil fuel energy costs is associated with producing and using synthetic fertilizers and their impact on global warming. The soil’s organic substances can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric CO2 [69].
Overall, incorporating agricultural wastes can be a sustainable practice to improve soil characteristics, agricultural production, carbon storage, and sequestration in the soil and allow better soil management. C2S2 ± FR + H3 achieved the highest fresh sorghum biomass yield, but it could be deduced that C1S1 ± FR + H2 is the best combination since the increases in the aforementioned maximum value and the best one were insignificant. C1S1FRH2 resulted in a soil bulk density of 1.24 mg cm−3, a total porosity of 53.38%, a void ratio of 1.15, a soil water saturation of 44.13%, a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 3.28 m day−1, and a mean diameter of the pore of 11.11 µm. This management may result in even more compost, sulfur, and humic acid savings; it saves 2 tons of compost + 100 kg of sulfur + 5 kg of humic acid that can be used for reclaiming and improving a new area of saline soil (about ¼ to ½ fed.). By improving soil health, water productivity, and quality, as well as reducing production and environmental costs, soil amendments can boost crop yield and simultaneously mitigate the effects of climate change [6]. Establishing a drainage network in this area and periodically leaching the soil by one irrigation with complete desalinate water before crop plantation and then adding organo–mineral amendments to the saline soil are vital fundamentals to controlling the salt risk in the long term and obtaining sustainable agriculture.

5. Conclusions

The study investigated the effects and residual of organic–mineral amendments on some properties of saline soil and the growth of sorghum and pea crops through split-split-plot design field experiments conducted in different seasons. The results obtained highlight the importance of carefully managing saline soil and partially treated saline water to achieve ecological agriculture. Effective soil reclamation and safe management require the application of specific combinations of amendments under drip irrigation technology. Therefore, the most effective and economical approach to improve soil properties, growth parameters, yield components, and crop water productivity is to apply organic–mineral amendments, natural rocks fertilizer, and humic acid. This combination consists of 4 tons/fed of compost and 400 kg/fed of mineral sulfur with natural rocks fertilizer and 5 kg/fed of humic acid. Establishing a drainage network, periodically leaching the soil before crop planting, and applying soil organic–mineral amendments are crucial requisites in the long term. These applications can potentially enhance the productivity of soil and crops, accomplish ecological application and valorization of plant waste, efficiently utilize natural sources, and promote sustainable agricultural practices in arid regions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w16223234/s1, Figure S1. Soil water stress of sorghum at Abo-Kalam area at Tor, Sinai.; Table S1. Conservative crop parameters for sorghum obtained from various sources, Table S2. Conservative crop parameters for pea obtained from various source, Table S3. Analysis of variance for the effect of organic natural soil amendments on sorghum yield in the summer season, Table S4. Analysis of variance for the residual effect of organic natural soil amendments on pea yield in the winter season, Table S5. Standard Deviations and means of the effect of soil amendments on sorghum crop parameters, Table S6. Standard Deviations and means of the effect of soil amendments on nutrient concentration of leaves of sorghum crop in the summer season, Table S7. Standard Deviations and means of the effect of soil amendments on sorghum nutrient uptake in the summer season, Table S8. Standard errors and means of sorghum crop parameters, Table S9. Standard errors and means of the effect of soil amendments on saline soil in the summer season, Table S10. Standard Deviations and means of the residual effect of soil amendments on pea crop, Table S11. Standard Deviations and means of the residual effect of soil amendments on saline soil in the winter, Table S12. Standard errors and means of the residual effect on pea parameters, Table S13. Standard errors and means of the residual effect of soil amendments on saline soil in the winter season, Table S14. Multiple correlation between pea parameters under residual effect of the studied treatments, Table S15. Costs of inputs according local price in Egypt in 2024, Table S16. Total profit of output and net profit according local price in Egypt in 2024; References [70,71] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

N.A.H., S.M.E.-A. and M.A. conceived and designed the experiments; N.A.H., S.M.E.-A. and M.A. performed experiment and laboratory analysis; N.A.H., S.K.A.-E. and Z.Z. analyzed the data; N.A.H., S.M.E.-A., M.A., S.K.A.-E. and H.A.M. contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; N.A.H., S.M.E.-A., M.A., S.K.A.-E., Z.Z. and H.A.M. wrote and revised the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The research activity was carried out at National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Jiménez-González, M.A.; Jordán, A.; Zhang, Z.; Mohamed, E.S.; Hammam, A.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Abdel-Fattah, M.K.; Abdelfattah, M.A.; Jones, L. Past and Future Impacts of Urbanisation on Land Surface Temperature in Greater Cairo over a 45 Year Period. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Sp. Sci. 2022, 25, 961–974. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Fitch, A.C.; Zhang, Z.; Ali, R.R.; Jones, L. Rapid Urbanisation Threatens Fertile Agricultural Land and Soil Carbon in the Nile Delta. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 252, 109668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tan, S.; Su, X.; Jiang, X.; Yao, W.; Chen, S.; Yang, Q.; Ning, S. Irrigation Salinity Affects Water Infiltration and Hydraulic Parameters of Red Soil. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, P.; Sharma, P.K. Soil Salinity and Food Security in India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 533781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yukun, G.; Jianghui, C.; Genzeng, R.; Shilin, W.; Puyuan, Y.; Congpei, Y.; Hongkai, L.; Jinhua, C. Changes in the Root-Associated Bacteria of Sorghum Are Driven by the Combined Effects of Salt and Sorghum Development. Environ. Microbiomes 2021, 16, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Haggag, L.F.; Hemdan, N.A.; Mahmoud, T.S.M.; El-hady, E.S. Impact of Biochar Mixed with Compost on Olive and Some Soil Properties under Saline Water and Soil Management. Int. J. Mech. Eng. 2022, 7, 911–927. [Google Scholar]
  7. Badreldin, N.; Goossens, R. A Satellite-Based Disturbance Index Algorithm for Monitoring Mitigation Strategies Effects on Desertification Change in an Arid Environment. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2015, 20, 263–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sufardi, S.; Arabia, T.; Khairullah, K.; Apriani, I. Particle Size Distribution and Clay Minerals in Dryland Soils of Aceh Besar, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 21 September 2021; Volume 922. [Google Scholar]
  9. Juárez-Hernández, S.; Sheinbaum Pardo, C. Assessing the Potential of Alternative Farming Practices for Sustainable Energy and Water Use and GHG Mitigation in Conventional Maize Systems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 22, ISBN 1066801900559. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kubenkulov, K.; Naushabayev, A.; Hopkins, D. Reclamation Efficiency of Elemental Sulfur on the Soda Saline Soil. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 23, 1245–1252. [Google Scholar]
  11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Use of Phosphate Rocks for Sustainable Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2004; Volume 13, ISBN 9251050309. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mikkelsen, R.L. Managing Potassium for Organic Crop Production. HortTechnology 2007, 17, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grattan, S.R.; Oster, J.D. Use and Reuse of Saline-Sodic Waters for Irrigation of Crops. J. Crop Prod. 2003, 7, 131–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lakhdar, A.; Rabhi, M.; Ghnaya, T.; Montemurro, F.; Jedidi, N.; Abdelly, C. Effectiveness of Compost Use in Salt-Affected Soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 171, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bakari, H.; Djomdi; Ruben, Z.F.; Roger, D.D.; Cedric, D.; Guillaume, P.; Pascal, D.; Philippe, M.; Gwendoline, C. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. moench) and Its Main Parts (By-Products) as Promising Sustainable Sources of Value-Added Ingredients. Waste Biomass Valorization 2022, 14, 1023–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhuang, Q.; Shao, Z.; Li, D.; Huang, X.; Cai, B.; Altan, O.; Wu, S. Unequal Weakening of Urbanization and Soil Salinization on Vegetation Production Capacity. Geoderma 2022, 411, 115712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Raes, D.; Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. Chapter 1—FAO Crop-Water Productivity Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water. In Reference Manual, AquaCrop, Version 6.0; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2018; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
  18. Negm, A.M. Conventional Water Resources and Agriculture in Egypt; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 3319950657. [Google Scholar]
  19. Amer, M.H.; Abd El Hafez, S.A.; Abd El Ghany, M.B. Water Saving in Irrigated Agriculture in Egypt; LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2017; ISBN 9786202024020. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kumar, R.; Ahmed, M.; Bhadrachari, G.; Thomas, J.P. Desalination for Agriculture: Water Quality and Plant Chemistry, Technologies and Challenges. Water Supply 2018, 18, 1505–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ma, L.; Guo, H.; Min, W. Nitrous Oxide Emission and Denitrifier Bacteria Communities in Calcareous Soil as Affected by Drip Irrigation with Saline Water. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 143, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shalaby, M.S.; Shaarawy, H.H.; Shaban, A.M.; Abdallah, H. Evaluation for Ro-Brackish Water Desalination: A Case Study in Tor Sinai—South Sinai Governate. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 13650–13658. [Google Scholar]
  23. Matthiessen, M.K.; Larney, F.J.; Selinger, L.B.; Olson, A.F. Influence of Loss-on-Ignition Temperature and Heating Time on Ash Content of Compost and Manure. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2005, 36, 2561–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Şahan, Y.; Basoglu, F.; Gücer, S. ICP-MS Analysis of a Series of Metals (Namely: Mg, Cr, Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, Zn, Sn, Cd and Pb) in Black and Green Olive Samples from Bursa, Turkey. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 395–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cottenie, A.; Verloo, M.; Kiekens, L. Chemical Analysis of Plants and Soils, Laboratory of Analytical and Agrochemistry; State University Ghent: Ghent, Belgium, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  26. Afifi, A.A.; Youssef, R.A.; Hussein, M.M. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectometry Study on Early Stage of Salt Stress in Jojoba Plant. Life Sci. J. 2013, 10, 1973–1981. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhou, L.; Yuan, L.; Zhao, B.; Li, Y.; Lin, Z. Structural Characteristics of Humic Acids Derived from Chinese Weathered Coal under Different Oxidizing Conditions. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e217469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hemdan, N.A. Water Regime of Some Crops Grown Under Drip Irrigation at El-Kharga Oasis. Master’s Thesis, Department of Soil and Water, Agriculture Faculty, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  29. Doorenbos, J. Crop Water Requirements; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mullins, C.; Smith, K. Soil and Environmental Analysis; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000; Volume 20004171, ISBN 978-0-8247-0414-8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vomocil, J.A. Particle-Size Analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Klute, A., Ed.; Part 1; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 9, p. 299. [Google Scholar]
  32. Richards, L.A. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1954, 18, 348. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dielman, P.J.; De Ridder, N. Elementary Ground Water Hydraulic in Drainage Principals and Applications; ILRI: Wageningen, the Netherlands, 1972; Volume 16, pp. 153–200. [Google Scholar]
  34. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.; Elias, F.; Raes, D. Crop Yield Response to Water; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; ISBN 9789251072745. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gomez, K.A. Gomez Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; A Wiley-Intersclence Publication: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hemdan, N.A. Irrigation Systems: Overview about Technology & Management Results of Experiments on Drip Irrigation in Egypt. Ph.D Thesis, Life Science Faculty, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yuvaraj, M.; Subash, K.; Bose, C.; Tawfik, E. Chapter Soil Salinity and Its Management. In Soil Moisture Importance; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  38. Antia, D.D.J. Desalination of Irrigation Water Using Metal Polymers. Water 2022, 14, 3224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Du, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, W. Drip Irrigation in Agricultural Saline-Alkali Land Controls Soil Salinity and Improves Crop Yield: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 880, 163226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ayangbenro, A.S.; Chukwuneme, C.F.; Ayilara, M.S.; Kutu, F.R.; Khantsi, M.; Adeleke, B.S.; Glick, B.R.; Babalola, O.O. Harnessing the Rhizosphere Soil Microbiome of Organically Amended Soil for Plant Productivity. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ho, T.T.K.; Tra, V.T.; Le, T.H.; Nguyen, N.K.Q.; Tran, C.S.; Nguyen, P.T.; Vo, T.D.H.; Thai, V.N.; Bui, X.T. Compost to Improve Sustainable Soil Cultivation and Crop Productivity. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2022, 6, 100211. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hueso-González, P.; Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Martínez-Murillo, J.F. The Role of Organic Amendments in Drylands Restoration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Larney, F.J.; Angers, D.A. The Role of Organic Amendments in Soil Reclamation: A Review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Musa, A.M.; Ishak, C.F.; Jaafar, N.M.; Karam, D.S. Carbon Dynamics of Fruit and Vegetable Wastes and Biodegradable Municipal Waste Compost-Amended Oxisol. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Radicetti, E.; Osipitan, O.A.; Langeroodi, A.R.S.; Marinari, S.; Mancinelli, R. CO2 Flux and c Balance Due to the Replacement of Bare Soil with Agro-Ecological Service Crops in Mediterranean Environment. Agriculture 2019, 9, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Freitas, W.E.d.S.; de Oliveira, A.B.; Mesquita, R.O.; de Carvalho, H.H.; Prisco, J.T.; Gomes-Filho, E. Sulfur-Induced Salinity Tolerance in Lettuce Is Due to a Better P and K Uptake, Lower Na/K Ratio and an Efficient Antioxidative Defense System. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nazar, R.; Iqbal, N.; Masood, A.; Syeed, S.; Khan, N.A. Understanding the Significance of Sulfur in Improving Salinity Tolerance in Plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 70, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lu, D.; Chen, Q.; Li, C.; Gong, S. Effect of Potassium Feldspar on the Decomposition Rate of Phosphogypsum. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2021, 96, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhai, Y.; Hellmann, R.; Campos, A.; Findling, N.; Mayanna, S.; Wirth, R.; Schreiber, A.; Cabié, M.; Zeng, Q.; Liu, S.; et al. Fertilizer Derived from Alkaline Hydrothermal Alteration of K-Feldspar: A Micrometer to Nanometer-Scale Investigation of K in Secondary Reaction Products and the Feldspar Interface. Appl. Geochem. 2021, 126, 104828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Türk, T.; Üçerler, Z.; Burat, F.; Bulut, G.; Kangal, M.O. Extraction of Potassium from Feldspar by Roasting with CaCl2 Obtained from the Acidic Leaching of Wollastonite-Calcite Ore. Minerals 2021, 11, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ciceri, D.; de Oliveira, M.; Chen, D.P.; Allanore, A. Role of Processing Temperature and Time on the Hydrothermal Alteration of K-Feldspar Rock in Autoclave. Min. Metall. Explor. 2020, 37, 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lodi, L.A.; Klaic, R.; Ribeiro, C.; Farinas, C.S. A Green K-Fertilizer Using Mechanical Activation to Improve the Solubilization of a Low-Reactivity Potassium Mineral by Aspergillus Niger. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 15, 100711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rashad, R.T.; Hussien, R.A. Agronomic Efficiency of Feldspar, Quartz Silica, and Zeolite as Silicon (Si) Fertilizers in Sandy Soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 1078–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Samantray, J.; Anand, A.; Dash, B.; Ghosh, M.K.; Behera, A.K. Sustainable Process for the Extraction of Potassium from Feldspar Using Eggshell Powder. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 14990–14998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, C.; Li, W.; Yang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Shao, W.; Ji, J. An Invisible Soil Acidification: Critical Role of Soil Carbonate and Its Impact on Heavy Metal Bioavailability. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, Y.; Fang, F.; Wei, J.; Wu, X.; Cui, R.; Li, G.; Zheng, F.; Tan, D. Humic Acid Fertilizer Improved Soil Properties and Soil Microbial Diversity of Continuous Cropping Peanut: A Three-Year Experiment. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khataar, M.; Mosaddeghi, M.R.; Amiri Chayjan, R.; Mahboubi, A.A. Prediction of Water Quality Effect on Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil by Artificial Neural Networks. Paddy Water Environ. 2018, 16, 631–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Klopp, H.W.; Daigh, A.L.M. Soil Hydraulic Model Parameters and Methodology as Affected by Sodium Salt Solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020, 84, 354–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jain, M.S.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Soil Revitalization via Waste Utilization: Compost Effects on Soil Organic Properties, Nutritional, Sorption and Physical Properties. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 18, 100668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ahanger, M.A.; Agarwal, R.M. Salinity Stress Induced Alterations in Antioxidant Metabolism and Nitrogen Assimilation in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as Influenced by Potassium Supplementation. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 115, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Desoky, E.S.M.; Saad, A.M.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Merwad, A.R.M.; Rady, M.M. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria: Potential Improvement in Antioxidant Defense System and Suppression of Oxidative Stress for Alleviating Salinity Stress in Triticum aestivum (L.) Plants. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 101878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. She, R.; Yu, Y.; Ge, C.; Yao, H. Soil Texture Alters the Impact of Salinity on Carbon Mineralization. Agronomy 2021, 11, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Easton, Z.M.; Specialist, E.; Engineering, B.S.; Tech, V. Soil and Soil Water Relationships. In Virginia Cooperative Extension; Publication BSE-194P; Virginia State University: Petersburg, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Meng, Y.; He, Z.; Liu, B.; Chen, L.; Lin, P.; Luo, W. Soil Salinity and Moisture Control the Processes of Soil Nitrification and Denitrification in a Riparian Wetlands in an Extremely Arid Regions in Northwestern China. Water 2020, 12, 2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oh, S.; Cho, K.; Park, S.; Kwon, M.J.; Chung, J.; Lee, S. Denitrification Dynamics in Unsaturated Soils with Different Porous Structures and Water Saturation Degrees: A Focus on the Shift in Microbial Community Structures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 445, 130413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Raymond, R.; Brady, C. Nitrogen and Sulfur Economy of Soils. In The Nature and Properties of Soils; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 583–642. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hemdan, N.A.; Mahmoud, T.S.M.; Abdalla, A.M.; Mansour, H.A. Using Moringa Oleifera Seed Cake and Compost as Organic Soil Amendments for Sustainable Agriculture in Valencia Orange Orchard. Agric. Soc. 2021, 9, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ma, Y.; Zhang, H.; Xue, Y.; Gao, Y.; Qian, X.; Dai, H.; Liu, K.; Li, Q.; Li, Z. Effect of Sulfur Fertilizer on Summer Maize Grain Yield and Soil Water Utilization under Different Irrigation Patterns from Anthesis to Maturity. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 250, 106828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Almendro-Candel, M.B.; Lucas, I.G.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Zorpas, A.A. Physical Properties of Soils Affected by the Use of Agricultural Waste. In Agricultural Waste and Residues; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  70. Raes, D.; Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. Aquacrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: II. Main Algorithms and Software Description. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.; Raes, D.; Fereres, E. Aquacrop—the FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: I. Concepts and Underlying Principles. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 16 03234 g001
Figure 1. Location of the experiment at NRC’s Agricultural Research Station (Abo-Kalam Farm) Tor, South Sinai, Egypt.
Figure 1. Location of the experiment at NRC’s Agricultural Research Station (Abo-Kalam Farm) Tor, South Sinai, Egypt.
Water 16 03234 g001
Water 16 03234 g002
Figure 2. Graph of the studied split-split-plot design experiments.
Figure 2. Graph of the studied split-split-plot design experiments.
Water 16 03234 g002
Water 16 03234 g003
Figure 3. Organo–mineral–natural resources are identified by FTIR spectroscopy: (a–d) function groups’ intensity of elemental sulfur and rock phosphate, feldspar (potassium source) peak, and humic acid.
Figure 3. Organo–mineral–natural resources are identified by FTIR spectroscopy: (a–d) function groups’ intensity of elemental sulfur and rock phosphate, feldspar (potassium source) peak, and humic acid.
Water 16 03234 g003
Water 16 03234 g004
Figure 4. The general individual effect of organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum biomass yield tons/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5 and 0 kg/fed). Different letters in the figures show significant differences according to the Tukey–Kramer test (p = 0.05).
Figure 4. The general individual effect of organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum biomass yield tons/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5 and 0 kg/fed). Different letters in the figures show significant differences according to the Tukey–Kramer test (p = 0.05).
Water 16 03234 g004
Water 16 03234 g005
Figure 5. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on total sorghum biomass tons/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.
Figure 5. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on total sorghum biomass tons/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.
Water 16 03234 g005
Water 16 03234 g006
Figure 6. General individual residual effect of organo–mineral–natural resources on pea pod yield kg/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), RF: natural rock fertilizers (rock phosphate and feldspar), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed). Different letters in the figures show significant differences according to the Tukey–Kramer test (p = 0.05).
Figure 6. General individual residual effect of organo–mineral–natural resources on pea pod yield kg/fed, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), RF: natural rock fertilizers (rock phosphate and feldspar), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed). Different letters in the figures show significant differences according to the Tukey–Kramer test (p = 0.05).
Water 16 03234 g006
Water 16 03234 g007
Figure 7. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saturated hydraulic conductivity of saline soil, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed +mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Figure 7. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saturated hydraulic conductivity of saline soil, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed +mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Water 16 03234 g007
Water 16 03234 g008
Figure 8. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on soil hydraulic conductivity (Hc); N, Na, and K concentrations % in the sorghum plant leaves; sorghum water productivity, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Figure 8. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on soil hydraulic conductivity (Hc); N, Na, and K concentrations % in the sorghum plant leaves; sorghum water productivity, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Water 16 03234 g008
Water 16 03234 g009
Figure 9. The residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saturated hydraulic conductivity of saline soil, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Figure 9. The residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saturated hydraulic conductivity of saline soil, where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Water 16 03234 g009
Water 16 03234 g010
Figure 10. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum biomass water productivity (kg/m3), where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Figure 10. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum biomass water productivity (kg/m3), where: C1, C2, C3, and C4: (Compost rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, and H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed).
Water 16 03234 g010
Water 16 03234 g011
Figure 11. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on net profits, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, where C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LE: Egyptian pound, fed = 4200 m2.
Figure 11. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on net profits, where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, where C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LE: Egyptian pound, fed = 4200 m2.
Water 16 03234 g011
Table 1. Chemical and hydrophysical analysis of the initial soil before crop cultivation.
Table 1. Chemical and hydrophysical analysis of the initial soil before crop cultivation.
pH *ECs dSm−1Anions (Meq/L)Cations (Meq/L)
CO3HCO3ClSO4CaMgNaK
8.0120.5-2.9180.436.758.647.8111.62
Mechanical analysis of soilHydrophysical analysis of soil
Coarse sand %Fine sand %Silt %Clay %TextureSoil saturation %Soil field capacity %Wilting point %Soil bulk density Mg/m3Hydraulic conductivity m/day
23.328.929.518.3Sandy loam3520.68.71.50.11
Note: * Where three composite soil samples at a 30 cm depth were used for analysis.
Table 2. Chemical analysis of Beer Abo-Kalam feed water, including permeation and rejection [22,23].
Table 2. Chemical analysis of Beer Abo-Kalam feed water, including permeation and rejection [22,23].
ParameterSaline Well Water (Feed Water)Permeate WaterRejected Concentrate Saline Water
pH7.357.267.8
EC dSm−17.430.5914.01
TDS ppm (mg/L)5950187.611,208
Calcium11654961.5
Magnesium23819.2168
Sodium1591.6873606
Potassium7.920.3910.53
HCO3−15931.1398.35
Cl−190266.54790
SO4−243666.568248
Iron0.12<0.010.8
Manganese0.06<0.010.17
Table 3. The chemical analysis of compost.
Table 3. The chemical analysis of compost.
C/N Ratio *O.M %O.C %Elements (%)
NPKCaMg
2449.6828.811.20.140.564.130.8
Elements (ppm)
FeCuMnBZnNiCdPb
6673.436.3243.111.190.9000
Note: * Where, C/N: carbon/nitrogen; O.M: organic matter; O.C: organic carbon.
Table 4. Sorghum crop parameters under study are used in minimum data input calibration of sorghum plus the original AquaCrop default sorghum crop file value.
Table 4. Sorghum crop parameters under study are used in minimum data input calibration of sorghum plus the original AquaCrop default sorghum crop file value.
ParameterSorghum Under StudyDefault Sorghum Crop File
Planting date28 May 2015
Planting density (plants/ha)44,44444,444
Time to crop establishment (days)1414
Maximum canopy cover (%)81.289
Time to maximum canopy cover %7584
Time to flowering (days)7470
Duration of flowering (days)1427
Time to canopy senescence (days)12698
Time to physiological maturity (days)140140
Table 5. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum plant parameters.
Table 5. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on sorghum plant parameters.
Treatments *Plant Height cmFresh Plant Weight gDry Plant Weight gDry Leaves Weight per Plant gPanicle Length cmFresh Panicles Weight gDry Panicle Weight gPanicles Yield kg/fedSeed IndexSorghum Biomass Yield ton/fedObserved Crop Water Productivity kg/m3Simulated Crop Water Productivity kg/m3
C1S1FRH3133373.33237.3263.8319.3351.7545.25655.512.5215.684.484.78
H2132.33346.67207.9450.152232.6239.916372.4414.564.164.38
H1130.33255179.245.1722.6729.5925.12364.832.6810.713.063.19
PKH3126.33388.33244.6753.242136.5656.75767.662.7416.314.665.02
H2122.33366.67232.5667.2922.3324.9642.32524.192.515.44.44.56
H1114.33306.67188.5754.032431.5932.81413.282.512.883.683.8
C2S2FRH3137.67408.33242.3868.0821.3363.7342.89686.212.617.154.95.14
H2131360197.755.8920.3342.9427.2625.062.4115.124.324.47
H1129.67296.67183.0947.9821.6732.0726.82515.052.212.463.563.68
PKH3141.67423.33235.871.2719.3342.8447767.932.2817.785.085.43
H2127.67348.33213.9466.361948.5930.96648.972.1914.634.184.36
H1123.33328.33184.9151.5519.3328.8323.83589.691.6813.793.944.17
C3S3FRH3134.67353.33210.7251.221.3330.8536.24531.312.2314.844.244.39
H2130.67281.67193.3846.1220.549.6229.72499.272.0711.833.383.54
H1126.67260161.4943.582024.0618.55421.332.7510.923.123.28
PKH3125.67373.33213.7854.9818.6731.7641.79550.662.3315.684.484.84
H2127.67325192.9649.4720.6732.1127.55487.721.6213.653.94.14
H1115.67293.33145.3548.2219.6726.8119.39431.972.112.323.523.75
C4S4FRH3127.33316.67140.6244.5421.6714.3423.35172.551.8313.33.84.06
H2125.67300148.9541.0518.3316.0323.87224.411.312.63.63.8
H1115.33266.67144.3734.5718.6720.6627.43313.492.1611.23.23.4
PKH3120258.33158.1134.0817.3310.2422.46128.98110.853.13.27
H2121266.67132.8336.2317.3310.3918.63143.040.9411.23.24.29
H1123283.33111.4538.441912.4714.44254.581.8711.93.42.79
LSD 0.057.2555.4929.074.431.0918.879.2144.50.662.330.670.71
Note: * Where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed +mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LSD: least significant degree.
Table 6. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on nutrient uptake of the sorghum plant at harvest.
Table 6. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on nutrient uptake of the sorghum plant at harvest.
Treatments *N Uptake kg/fedK Uptake kg/fedP Uptake kg/fedNa Uptake kg/fedCa Uptake kg/fedK/NaCa/NaCa/K Na
C1S1FRH335.2618.682.617.011.750.2212.664.55
H227.8613.461.617.272.610.3151.864.74
H121.4212.021.117.452.880.3421.614.39
PKH334.5215.161.325.322.250.3552.876.38
H226.8914.811.604.692.040.3623.166.45
H126.7612.341.855.562.940.5012.125.99
C2S2FRH338.8618.002.515.681.580.2373.174.92
H223.9920.761.425.981.070.1533.493.70
H122.0811.011.205.62.260.3431.984.38
PKH330.9219.011.785.221.540.2473.645.53
H228.4520.331.367.851.470.1622.683.73
H121.999.171.124.731.650.2852.063.18
C3S3FRH325.4214.361.905.811.810.2622.564.42
H222.4512.621.815.442.510.3892.325.78
H119.7013.421.615.721.840.2822.514.05
PKH326.0314.061.736.141.950.2862.354.55
H222.5612.491.206.322.130.2911.994.16
H121.208.030.966.471.910.2761.222.24
C4S4FRH319.138.121.135.932.180.3111.392.97
H219.699.171.404.951.830.3111.963.40
H119.277.891.132.861.370.3552.753.78
PKH321.264.191.271.871.870.672.364.40
H213.598.750.842.550.670.2863.423.10
H115.337.430.773.521.230.2712.102.57
LSD 0.057.583.640.720.671.291.8961.1050.119
Note: * Where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (rock phosphate and feldspar), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LSD: least significant degree.
Table 7. Multiple correlations among sorghum yield and growth parameters under the effect of the studied treatments.
Table 7. Multiple correlations among sorghum yield and growth parameters under the effect of the studied treatments.
Plant Height cmPanicle Length cmFresh Plant w. gDry Leaves w.
g		Dry Panicle w.
g		Dry Stem w.
g		No. of PaniclesMean Fresh Plant Weight
g		Dry Plant w.
g		Mean Fresh Panicle w. gDry Panicles W. kg/fedSeed IndexSorghum Biomass Yield ton/fed
Plant height cm1
Panicle length cm0.161
Fresh plant w.0.590.181
Dry leaves w. g0.540.320.861
Dry panicle w. g0.470.290.830.711
Dry stem w. g0.570.340.670.690.791
Panicles no.−0.120.090.230.130.160.031
Mean fresh plant weight g0.620.290.640.770.60.75−0.231
Dry plant w. g0.590.350.830.850.90.950.10.791
Mean fresh panicles W.0.620.290.640.770.60.75−0.2310.791
Dry panicles W.0.580.30.810.820.760.810.310.830.880.831
Seed index0.330.630.430.560.550.520.270.590.590.590.671
Sorghum biomass yield ton/fed0.590.1810.860.830.670.230.640.830.640.810.431
Table 8. Multiple correlations among nutrient uptake of sorghum plant under the effect of the studied treatments.
Table 8. Multiple correlations among nutrient uptake of sorghum plant under the effect of the studied treatments.
K/NaN Uptake kg/fedK Uptake kg/fedP Uptake kg/fedNa Uptake kg/fedCa Uptake kg/fedYield of Sorghum Biomass ton/fed
K/Na1
N uptake kg/fed0.4531
K uptake kg/fed0.6080.7291
P uptake kg/fed0.3530.7870.6321
Na uptake kg/fed−0.2880.3590.5680.3421
Ca uptake kg/fed0.1060.6230.4400.5580.3911
Yield of sorghum biomass ton/fed0.3730.8250.7490.5930.4800.4381
Table 9. Residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on pea plant parameters.
Table 9. Residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on pea plant parameters.
Treatment *Pea Plant Length cmNo. of PodsFresh Pod Weight/Plant gNo. of SeedFresh Seed Weight/Plant gDry Seeds Weight gDry Pea Plant Weight gPod Yield kg/fedObserved Crop Water Productivity kg/m3Simulated Crop Water Productivity kg/m3
C1S1FRH36720.3342.748120.4710.4916.111970.691.01
H269.6725.6754.5790.3323.7715.0618.0715280.881.29
H174.3333.6775.6698.3335.5622.3722.9621181.221.79
PKH36114.6733.9363.3318.711.7310.459500.550.8
H267.3321.3348.6685.6722.5314.8413.0313630.781.15
H171.3331.6756.149428.1818.3117.8915720.91.33
C2S2FRH368.3315.3331.9763.6718.377.799.12895.20.510.76
H272.3323.3357.218827.2517.816.3916020.921.35
H175.6742.33101.58114.746.1425.6929.5428441.632.4
PKH363.3317.6732.7764.6714.3411.1711.67917.50.530.78
H267.3322.6741.0384.3324.4212.9714.8211490.660.97
H169.3326.3358.189529.1815.071916290.941.38
C3S3FRH375.331431.3864.6717.149.458.17878.60.50.74
H26721.3343.488122.612.1312.2712180.71.03
H175.6723.6749.9172.6724.2914.2917.1613980.81.18
PKH361.3317.3322.3854.6713.438.318.72626.70.360.53
H27220.3335.927221.2412.6112.3610060.580.85
H164.3324.3345.4191.3322.9415.5413.6812710.731.07
C4S4FRH370.672143.9887.3320.7212.0316.812310.711.04
H267.3313.3323.496112.938.6812.78657.70.380.56
H166.338.6713.244.338.265.367.6369.50.210.31
PKH361.3317.3332.2165.3316.876.1912.08901.90.520.76
H2662136.6669.3318.199.1213.9210260.590.87
H168.3321.3341.6575.6720.4511.1517.6311660.670.99
LSD 0.057.12.674.444.052.662.822.02124.30.070.11
Note: * Where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed +mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LSD: least significant degree.
Table 10. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saline soil hydrophysical properties.
Table 10. Effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saline soil hydrophysical properties.
Treatment *Soil Bulk Density Mg/m3Total Porosity %Void RatioSoil Water Saturation %Mean Diameter of Pore µm
C1S1FRH31.2253.791.1636.233.79
H21.2253.981.1839.103.81
H11.3250.051.0029.601.84
PKH31.2353.671.1643.263.17
H21.2253.781.1638.043.67
H11.2254.091.1835.403.22
C2S2FRH31.1755.921.2748.004.19
H21.1556.441.3045.963.07
H11.2552.691.1138.121.58
PKH31.1357.231.3449.294.16
H21.2054.881.2238.732.60
H11.2154.241.1937.182.32
C3S3FRH31.1855.431.2536.412.63
H21.3150.571.0235.821.96
H11.3250.291.0133.671.96
PKH31.1556.561.3039.042.69
H21.2652.631.1236.441.78
H11.3449.440.9835.721.32
C4S4FRH31.2851.651.0736.061.48
H21.3051.001.0435.021.25
H11.3549.220.9735.431.08
PKH31.3150.651.0333.911.17
H21.4047.150.8935.351.18
H11.4844.240.8034.951.10
LSD 0.050.062.360.112.650.15
Note: * Where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed +mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizer (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizer, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LSD: least significant degree.
Table 11. Multiple correlations between the yield of fresh sorghum biomass and some soil hydrophysical properties under the effect of soil amendments.
Table 11. Multiple correlations between the yield of fresh sorghum biomass and some soil hydrophysical properties under the effect of soil amendments.
Soil Bulk Density Mg/m3Total Porosity %Void RatioSoil Water Saturation %Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity m/dayMean Diameter of Pore µmYield Fresh Sorghum Biomass ton/fed
Soil bulk density Mg/m31
Total porosity %−0.9991
Void ratio−0.9950.9961
Soil water saturation %−0.6630.6640.7001
Saturated hydraulic conductivity m/day−0.7260.7230.7360.7111
Mean diameter of pore µm−0.7830.7810.7900.6840.9871
Yield of fresh sorghum biomass ton/fed−0.8090.8080.8320.8330.8450.8511
Table 12. Residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saline soil’s hydrophysical properties.
Table 12. Residual effect of the organo–mineral–natural resources on saline soil’s hydrophysical properties.
Treatment *Soil Bulk Density Mg/m3Total Porosity %Void RatioSoil Water Saturation %Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity m/dayMean Diameter of Soil Pore µm
C1S1FRH31.2851.701.0735.754.9213.69
H21.2453.381.1544.133.2811.11
H11.3847.900.9226.882.018.74
PKH31.2652.301.1036.301.577.73
H21.1755.721.2637.461.477.49
H11.1357.411.3541.252.028.76
C2S2FRH31.1357.421.3540.513.4411.46
H21.1556.681.3142.781.557.68
H11.2253.901.1740.440.634.90
PKH31.1955.071.2339.501.236.81
H21.1755.741.2640.302.159.05
H11.1855.601.2542.805.2914.19
C3S3FRH31.1257.731.3746.446.7515.97
H21.1257.621.3642.094.9413.63
H11.1058.421.4154.400.865.74
PKH31.1755.711.2641.613.5111.51
H21.1457.141.3344.276.2615.38
H11.2353.651.1645.823.7311.92
C4S4FRH31.2154.501.2041.811.176.56
H21.2652.421.1044.432.419.54
H11.3548.980.9643.761.978.59
PKH31.2552.821.1245.832.148.83
H21.2154.181.1845.842.168.83
H11.2752.001.0841.782.038.65
LSD 0.05 =0.030.940.041.220.861.22
Notes: * Where: C1S1, C2S2, C3S3, and C4S4: (Compost (C) rate at 4, 6, 8, and 10 tons/fed + mineral sulfur (S) rate at 400, 500, 600, and 700 kg/fed.), FR: natural rock fertilizers (feldspar and rock phosphate), PK: artificial fertilizers, H: humic acid (10, 5, and 0 kg/fed), and LSD: least significant degree.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hemdan, N.A.; El-Ashry, S.M.; Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Zhang, Z.; Mansour, H.A.; Attia, M. Reclamation and Improvement of Saline Soils Using Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources, Treated Saline Water, and Drip Irrigation Technology. Water 2024, 16, 3234. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16223234

AMA Style

Hemdan NA, El-Ashry SM, Abd-Elmabod SK, Zhang Z, Mansour HA, Attia M. Reclamation and Improvement of Saline Soils Using Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources, Treated Saline Water, and Drip Irrigation Technology. Water. 2024; 16(22):3234. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16223234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hemdan, Nahla A., Soad M. El-Ashry, Sameh Kotb Abd-Elmabod, Zhenhua Zhang, Hani A. Mansour, and Magdy Attia. 2024. "Reclamation and Improvement of Saline Soils Using Organo–Mineral–Natural Resources, Treated Saline Water, and Drip Irrigation Technology" Water 16, no. 22: 3234. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16223234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop