Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Potential of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Mitigating Water Deficit Effects on Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Ionic Response and Sorghum Production under Water and Saline Stress in a Semi-Arid Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Effects on Growth Performance Parameters, Carcass Traits, Meat Nutrimental Quality and Intramuscular Fatty Acid Profile of Rabbits Fed with Diets with Avocado Waste (Persea americana Mill)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Foliar Application of Salicylic Acid Mitigates Saline Stress on Physiology, Production, and Post-Harvest Quality of Hydroponic Japanese Cucumber
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/agriculture13030550
agriculture-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

Potential of Brackish Groundwater for Different Biosaline Agriculture Systems in the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region

by
Carla Ingryd Nojosa Lessa
1,
Claudivan Feitosa de Lacerda
1,*,
Cláudio Cesar de Aguiar Cajazeiras
2,
Antonia Leila Rocha Neves
1,
Fernando Bezerra Lopes
1,
Alexsandro Oliveira da Silva
1,
Henderson Castelo Sousa
1,
Hans Raj Gheyi
3,
Rafaela da Silva Nogueira
4,
Silvio Carlos Ribeiro Vieira Lima
5,
Raimundo Nonato Távora Costa
1 and
Geocleber Gomes de Sousa
4
1
Agricultural Engineering Department, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza 60455-760, Brazil
2
Geological Survey of Brazil-CPRM, Fortaleza 60135-101, Brazil
3
Academic Unit of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Campina Grande, Campina Grande 58840-000, Brazil
4
Institute of Rural Development, University of International Integration of Afro-Brazilian Lusofonia, Redenção 62790-000, Brazil
5
Secretariat of Economic Development and Labor of the State of Ceará, Fortaleza 60160-230, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(3), 550; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030550
Submission received: 17 December 2022 / Revised: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 22 February 2023 / Published: 24 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosaline Agriculture and Salt Tolerance of Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this research was to define the potential of brackish groundwater for 15 systems of biosaline agriculture in a representative area of the Brazilian semi-arid region. The study was conducted using a database of the State of Ceará, with 6284 wells having brackish water (EC ≥ 0.8 dS m−1 and discharge rate ≥ 0.5 m3 h−1). Our results show that the potential of brackish groundwater resources depends on the set of data: (i) production system (crop salt tolerance and water demand) and (ii) water source (salinity and well discharge rate). The joint analysis of these data shows that plant production systems with lesser water requirements, even with moderate tolerance levels to salt stress, present better results than more tolerant species, including halophytes and coconut orchards. About 41, 43, 58, 69, and 82% of wells have enough discharge rates to irrigate forage cactus (1.0 ha), sorghum (1.0 ha with supplemental irrigation), hydroponic cultivation, cashew seedlings, and coconut seedlings, respectively, without restrictions in terms of salinity. Otherwise, 65.8 and 71.2% of wells do not have enough water yield to irrigate an area of 1.0 ha with halophytes and coconut palm trees, respectively, butmore than 98.3 and 90.7% do not reach the water salinity threshold for these crops. Our study also indicates the need for diversification and use of multiple systems on farms (intercropping, association of fish/shrimp with plants), to reach the sustainability of biosaline agriculture in tropical drylands, especially for family farming.

1. Introduction

The semi-arid regions of the world suffer from water shortage and are increasingly vulnerable to extreme events, imposed by climate variability and enhanced by climate change on a global scale [1,2]. In particular, the tropical semi-arid regions are faced with several constraints that compromise sustainability [3,4,5] and the expansion of the agricultural sectors, such as high temperature, water shortage, poorly developed soils, and high salinity of groundwater sources [6,7,8]. Prolonged droughts, as observed in the Brazilian semi-arid region between 2012 and 2016 [9,10], cause severe losses in agricultural and livestock production, as well as impact other sectors of the economy [11].
Irrigated agriculture is responsible for the highest consumption of available water in arid and semi-arid regions [12,13]. However, farmers in these regions suffer from problems related to the availability and quality of water for agricultural production [14]. According to [15], most surface reservoirs present in the Brazilian semi-arid region have a capacity ranging from 1 to 1000 hm3, with small (less than 10 hm3) and medium (10 to 50 hm3) sizes prevailing. Given the high evaporation rate and the scarcity of surface water in this region, the use of groundwater is a viable alternative [16].
According to data from the National Water Agency (ANA), in 2017 there were about 1.2 million wells drilled in the aquifers of Brazil [17]. In the Brazilian semi-arid region, there are about 160,000 wells [18], and a significant part of these water sources have a high salt concentration, with electrical conductivity of most water sources between 1.0 and 6.0 dS m−1 and an average discharge rate less than 3.0 m3 h−1 [6,19,20,21]. According to [6], the largest proportion of these wells with brackish water is found in the fractured crystalline aquifers, followed by alluvial and sedimentary areas.
With the scarcity of low-salinity water for use in irrigated agriculture, the use of brackish water appears to be an alternative [21,22]. Although these brackish sources can meet the water needs of certain production systems, the high salt concentration is a constraint for the growth and productivity of most crops [23,24,25]. Plants under salt stress may present changes in their metabolic and biochemical activities due to the osmotic and ionic effects of excess salts in the root zone, with direct impacts on stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate, inhibition of protein synthesis and enzymatic activities, and increased degradation of chlorophyll [26,27].
To partially circumvent salinity problems in agriculture, there is a vast literature on crop salt tolerance [28], as well as management strategies to reduce the impacts of excess salts on crop development [20]. In addition, there is a lot of information on the water needs of annual and perennial crops, and studies on the water potential of aquifers, which allow the elaboration of well-sized projects with water sustainability. However, the potential of these brackish water sources has only been assessed based on qualitative (water salinity) or quantitative (water yield) assessment [6,21,29]. According to quality indices, for example, a high percentage of the brackish groundwater (51%) in the Brazilian semi-arid region has been classified as poor quality for plant cultivation, while 87% integrated the best quality classes (excellent and good) for animal production [21]. Otherwise, studies that simultaneously evaluate the quantitative and qualitative potential of brackish groundwater for agricultural purposes have not been carried out to date. Therefore, this innovative approach needs to be developed to ensure the expansion of sustainable biosaline production under arid and semi-arid climates. The results of this type of research can give a more realistic guide for the use of brackish groundwater by farmers as well as for the improvement of public policies related to the agriculture sector.
Considering this new approach, our study tested the hypothesis that the potential of wells with brackish water in the Brazilian semi-arid region depends on the water salinity level, water discharge rates, and inherent characteristics of biosaline production systems (salt tolerance and water demand). Thus, the objective of this study was to define, based on qualitative and quantitative indicators, the potential of wells with brackish water for 15 agricultural production systems in a representative area of the Brazilian semi-arid region.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Characterization of the Study Area

The Brazilian semi-arid region covers areas of nine States in the Northeast Region and one in the Southeast Region, covering 1262 municipalities. It has a total area of approximately 1.12 million km2, and about 27 million inhabitants [30]. This study was carried out using a database from the State of Ceará (Figure 1). The State is made up of 184 municipalities, with a total area of 148,886 km2, and a population of 8.9 million inhabitants. According to the Köppen classification, the State of Ceará has two types of climates: BSh (tropical semi-arid climate) and Aw (tropical climate with dry winter). However, the semi-arid tropical climate is predominant [31] in approximately 95% of the area of the state, with an average annual temperature of 27 °C, potential evapotranspiration of 1700 mm, and average annual rainfall from 500 to 800 mm, with around 80% concentrated during February to May [32].

2.2. Database Characterization

The research was carried out using a database of chemical analyses of water from wells in 179 municipalities in the State of Ceará, provided by the Superintendência de Obras Hidráulicas do Ceará (SOHIDRA) and by the Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CPRM). The selection of wells with brackish water was based on the electrical conductivity of the water (EC) ≥ 0.8 dS m−1 (quality criterion) and discharge rate (Q) ≥ 0.5 m3 h−1 (water availability criterion).
The database consists of wells drilled from 1987 to 2021, totaling 25,497 wells, with 6284 wells (about 25% of the total) meeting the quality and water availability criteria established for the study (EC ≥ 0.8 dS m−1 and Q ≥ 0.5 m3 h−1). The database also includes relevant information, such as: city, geographic coordinates, drilling year, and depth. Table 1 presents the minimum, average, maximum, and median for electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, discharge rate, and depth.

2.3. Selected Production Systems

To assess the potential use of brackish water, plant production systems and two fish and plant associations were considered, characterized as follows: (i) full irrigation (halophytes and maize); (ii) supplemental irrigation of annual crops (maize, sorghum, and cotton); (iii) irrigation of perennial crops (forage cactus, cashew, and coconut trees); (iv) hydroponics (vegetables); (v) production of seedlings in nurseries (coconut, cashew, and tree species from the Caatinga biome); (vi) ornamental plants; and (vii) association of fish and plants: (Tilapia—Oreochromis niloticus plus glycophytes and Tilapia plus halophytes). The selection of these production systems considered their adaptability to the semi-arid tropical climate, being commonly used in small and medium farms in the semi-arid region of Brazil.

2.4. Definition of Salinity Thresholds

The water salinity threshold for the 15 production systems was defined based on results published in the scientific literature (Table 2), considering a production loss of up to 10% (EC90).
In general, less restrictive water salinity thresholds were chosen, considering the existence of poorly developed soils in areas with a high occurrence of brackish groundwater in the Brazilian semi-arid region. A minimum leaching fraction of 15% is recommended to avoid excessive salt build-up, especially when full irrigation is used. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) should be previously evaluated in the case of soils with medium texture or with high clay content, although SAR values are not high in most water sources in the region studied [6]. In some cases, the potential for incrustation or corrosion must also be evaluated to avoid clogging problems in the irrigation system, especially in waters with a high concentration of carbonates and sulphate [28].
For supplemental irrigation of annual crops, the salinity thresholds are higher than for full irrigation, because of the possibility of leaching of part of the salts by rainwater [68]. However, for supplemental irrigation of cotton, it is recommended to use the threshold salinity value indicated for full irrigation, given the types of soils in which cotton is cultivated, which normally have high clay content. For perennial crops, both possibilities of full and supplemental irrigation were considered. Full irrigation of perennial crops such as coconut and cashew nut should be carried out in deep sandy soils and orchards in production. The implantation of new orchards must be performed at the beginning of the rainy season, with the use of supplemental irrigation with brackish water, if necessary.
For most cases, localized irrigation is recommended, as this method reduces the direct impact of salinity on the leaves. However, sprinkler irrigation may be used for annual crops, especially for supplemental irrigation of foragewith water of moderate salinity. Supplemental irrigation can be practiced during the rainy season in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Forage cactus should only be irrigated in the dry season.
The fish plus glycophytes system combines tilapia cultivation with plant production systems (supplemental irrigation of annual crops or forage cactus irrigation or seedling production in nurseries or hydroponic cultivation), and the average salinity threshold for plant cultivation was considered. For the fish plus halophyte system, the threshold value for tilapia cultivation (9.0 dS m−1) was considered [65,66,67].

2.5. Definition of the Minimum Required Discharge Rates

The minimum discharge rate (Table 3) was defined according to the size of the enterprise, the water demand of each production system, and the time of functioning of the deep well (6 h per day).
For full irrigation of maize, a daily water depth of 5.0 mm was considered [69], with localized irrigation and a wetted area equal to 50% of the total area. This value represents the water consumption at the stage of maximum crop demand, with lower consumption at the other stages. For longer irrigation intervals, a 50–100 m3 cistern/tank will be required to store water from the well on days without an irrigation event. For supplemental irrigation of annual crops, the adequate discharge rate will be half of that required for full irrigation [69,70,71], with the possibility of storing rainwater or well water during the dry spells.
For forage cactus irrigation, 40,000 plants ha−1 and an irrigation depth of 1.0 mm per day were considered [72,73], with weekly irrigation during the dry season, which requires the storage of well water. For the dwarf cashew, 204 plants ha−1 were considered with an average water application of 80 L plant−1 day−1 [74]. For dwarf green coconut, 200 plants ha−1 were considered with an average water application rate of 150 L plant−1 day−1 [75,76].
For the fish plus glycophytes system, the discharge rate required for 0.4 ha of supplemental irrigation of annual crops, or 0.5 ha of forage cactus was considered, which is also sufficient for hydroponics or seedling production. For the fish plus halophytes system, the discharge rate required for 0.5 ha of halophytes was considered. The total water required by each system also includes evaporation losses in fish farming. A total volume of 100 m3 was considered for the cultivation of fish, which can be stored in one or more tanks.

2.6. Criteria for Defining the Potential of the Wells

The criteria for water quality (threshold salinity, Table 2) and water availability (water discharge required, Table 3) were adopted, and their respective adequacy and non-adequacy values, as described in Table 4:
For the irrigation of halophytes, annual crops, and perennial crops, the irrigable area in hectares was estimated. For this calculation, the following data were considered: The volume of water produced by the well without salinity restriction (m3) and the volume required for each cultivation system (m3 ha−1). The daily water volume produced by the well was obtained by multiplying the discharge rate by 6 (time of functioning).

2.7. Data Analysis

Data of electrical conductivity and discharge rate of the wells were organized in spreadsheets in the computer program Microsoft Excel in a file containing the respective geographic coordinates to facilitate the manipulation of the data. Then, georeferenced maps were made for each biosaline production system, using the Quantum GIS 3.22 program [77].

3. Results

3.1. Irrigation of Halophytes

Data analysis showed that 3637 wells (57.9%) have adequate electrical conductivity and discharge for full irrigation of halophytes for an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 2A). However, 70 wells (1.1%) do not have adequate electrical conductivity, but their discharge rate is adequate, 2539 wells (40.4%) have adequate electrical conductivity, but the water availability is insufficient, and 38 wells (0.6%) do not have an adequate discharge rate and the electrical conductivity is higher than the salinity threshold. For an area of 1.0 ha (Figure 2B), 2113 wells (33.7%) are adequate both from the point of view of electrical conductivity and water availability, 29 wells (0.5%) only have adequate discharge rates, 4063 wells (64.6%) only have adequate electrical conductivity, and 79 wells (1.2%) do not have suitable salinity or water availability.

3.2. Full and Supplemental Irrigation of Annual Crops

For full irrigation of maize, with an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 3A), about 1410 wells (22.4%) show EC and Q suitability, 1729 wells (27.5%) show inadequate EC and adequate Q, 1263 wells (20.1%) have adequate EC and inadequate Q, and 1882 wells (30.0%) do not have adequate EC or adequate Q. For 1.0 ha (Figure 3B), only 794 wells (12.6%) have adequate EC and Q, 839 wells (13.3%) only have adequate Q, 1879 wells (30.0%) only have adequate EC, and 2772 wells (44.1%) have salinity above the threshold and do not reach the minimum discharge required for the crop.
For supplemental irrigation of maize, for 0.5 ha (Figure 3C), 3278 wells (52.2%) meet the water demand of the crop and have an EC within the salinity threshold of the crop. However, 1248 wells (19.8%) only have adequate Q, 1211 wells (19.3%) only have adequate electrical conductivity of water, and 547 wells (8.7%) did not present either adequate electrical conductivity or water availability. For the area of 1.0 ha (Figure 3D), 2314 wells (36.8%) fit according to EC and Q, 825 wells (13.1%) only have adequate discharge, 2175 wells (34.6%) only have adequate electrical conductivity, and 970 wells (15.5%) are not suitable due to the high salinity and low discharge rate.
Of the 6284 wells evaluated for supplemental irrigation of sorghum in an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 4A), 62.0% (3898 wells) have adequate EC and Q, 10.0% (628 wells) only have adequate Q, 23.3% (1462 wells) have adequate EC and inadequate Q, and 4.7% (296 wells) do not have adequate EC and Q. For an area of 1.0 ha (Figure 4B), 43.5% (2732 wells) of the wells have adequate EC and Q, 6.5% (407 wells) have inadequate EC and adequate Q, 41.8% (2628 wells) have adequate EC and inadequate Q, and 8.2% (517 wells) do not have adequate EC or Q.
For the practice of supplemental irrigation of cotton in an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 4C), 62.6% of wells (3938 wells) achieve adequacy in terms of salinity and water availability, 9.3% (588 wells) only have adequate Q, 23.5% (1477 wells) only have adequate EC, and 4.5% (281 wells) do not have either adequate water electrical conductivity or well discharge. Considering an area of 1.0 ha (Figure 4D), 44.0% of wells (2760 wells) have adequate water electrical conductivity and discharge, 6.0% (379 wells) only have adequate Q, 42.2% (2655 wells) only have adequate EC, and 7.8% (490 wells) are limited by both high salinity and low water availability.

3.3. Irrigation of Perennial Crops

In the irrigation of forage cactus for an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 5A), 3624 wells (57.7%) are adequate in terms of salinity and water availability, 1603 wells (25.5%) only have adequate Q, 703 wells (11.2%) only have adequate EC, and 354 wells (5.6%) have inadequate EC and Q. For an area of 1.0 ha (Figure 5B), 2594 wells (41.3%) present adequate EC and Q, 1108 wells (17.6%) only have adequate Q, 1733 wells (27.6%) only have adequate EC, and 849 wells (13.5%) do not have adequate EC or Q.
For the management of coconut irrigation in an area of 0.5 ha (Figure 6A), 41.2% of wells (2592 wells) have adequate electrical conductivity and discharge, 3.5% (217 wells) only have adequate Q, 49.4% (3105 wells) are limited only by low discharge, and 5.9% (370 wells) have problems of high salinity and low water availability. For an area of 1.0 ha, 19.5% (1225 wells) have adequate EC and Q, 1.4% (88 wells) have adequate Q only, 7.9% (499 wells) do not have adequate water electrical conductivity or discharge, and 71.2% (4472 wells) are limited by low water availability.
For irrigation of cashew in an area of 0.5 ha, it is observed that 55.7% (3501) of the wells have adequate EC and Q, 8.8% (554 wells) only have adequate Q, 29.6% (1859 wells) only have adequate EC, and 5.9% (370 wells) do not have adequate EC and Q (Figure 6C). For an area of 1.0 ha, 35.1% (2208) of the wells have adequate EC and Q, 5.0% (316 wells) do not have adequate EC, but have adequate Q, 9.7% (608 wells) do not have adequate EC or Q, while 50.2% (3152 wells) are unproductive due to low water availability (Figure 6D).

3.4. Seedlings, Hydroponics and Multiple Systems

Figure 7 highlights seedling production systems in nurseries and hydroponic cultivation. To produce 2000 coconut seedlings, 5195 wells (82.7%) achieve adequacy in terms of threshold water salinity and well discharge, while 1089 (17.3%) are limited by high salinity. To produce 2000 cashew seedlings (Figure 7B), 4327 wells (68.8%) have adequate water electrical conductivity and discharge, and 1957 (31.2%) are limited by high salinity. As for the production of 2000 seedlings of trees from the Caatinga biome or ornamental plants (Figure 7C), 3853 wells (61.3%) have adequate electrical conductivity and discharge, and 2431 wells (38.7%) have electrical conductivity above the water salinity threshold. For the hydroponic cultivation of vegetables in an area of 100 m2 (Figure 7D), 3624 wells (57.7%) have adequate water electrical conductivity and discharge, 1603 wells (25.5%) only have adequate Q, 703 wells (11.2%) only have adequate EC, and 354 (5.6%) are limited by both high salinity and low water availability.
For the association of tilapia plus glycophytes (0.4 ha of supplemental irrigation of annual crops, or 0.5 ha of forage cactus, or 100 m2 hydroponic cultivation, or production of 2000 seedlings in nurseries), 2982 wells (47.5%) have adequate EC and Q, 1272 wells (20.2%) have adequate Q but the electrical conductivity is not adequate, 1345 wells (21.4%) only have adequate EC, and 685 wells (10.9%) do not have an adequate discharge rate or electrical conductivity (Figure 8A). For the association tilapia plus 0.5 ha of halophytes (Figure 8B) 3042 wells (48.4%) have EC and Q adequacy, 97 wells (1.5%) have inadequate EC and adequate Q, 3016 wells (48.0%) have adequate EC and inadequate Q, and 129 (2.1%) do not have adequate EC or adequate Q.
However, when only tilapia production was considered, the numbers were much more positive (Figure 9), since this production system in tanks requires less water and tilapia has a high tolerance to water salinity. For tilapia production in tanks with a total volume of up to 100 m3, 5047 wells (80.3%) are adequate in terms of EC and Q, 180 wells (2.9%) only have adequate Q, 1011 wells (16.1%) only have adequate EC, and 46 wells (0.7%) do not have adequate conditions for both criteria (Figure 9).
Table 5 summarizes all the data on the number of wells with respective suitability categories for the different biosaline systems evaluated.

3.5. Estimated Irrigated Area for Cropping Systems

Considering the sampling of wells with brackish water (6284 wells distributed throughout the State of Ceará), the discharge required by each production system, and the water productivity of each well, it was possible to estimate the potential irrigable area for each system, without restrictions in terms of salinity (Table 6). Forage cactus has the largest potential irrigable area of the evaluated systems, followed by systems with supplemental irrigation (cotton, sorghum, and maize), almost all of which has more than 9000 ha. The smallest irrigable areas were found in the irrigation systems for coconut and full irrigation for maize.

4. Discussion

In this study, we sought to define the potential of brackish groundwater sources in the State of Ceará, a representative area of the Brazilian semi-arid region, based on the water productivity of groundwater wells, the salinity level of the water, and the water demand/salt tolerance of 15 production systems. The analyses showed that low discharge rates of brackish groundwater wells predominate in the Brazilian semi-arid region, a factor that reduces water availability and restricts enterprises to family farmers. However, it is possible to identify more promising production systems, due to their high capacity to tolerate water salinity levels, lower water demand, or both. Therefore, the expansion of biosaline agriculture in the tropical semi-arid region is not defined only by the salt tolerance of the crop.
Halophytes constitute the plant system with the highest tolerance to salinity among those analyzed, and can be irrigated with high salinity water, notably in soils with good natural drainage [33,34]. Halophytes can withstand high levels of salinity, while almost 99% of other plant species (glycophytes) have some level of sensitivity to salts [78,79]. Halophytes also show good adaptability to arid and semi-arid regions and can be cultivated under rainfed farming or in saline soils, and act as alternative forage plants, such as Atriplex spp., Salicornia spp. and Distichlis palmeri [80,81,82]. However, our data showed that about 65% of the wells with brackish water do not have enough water volume to irrigate an area of 1.0 ha with halophyte plants, although more than 95% have no salinity restriction (Figure 2). For the coconut, a salinity-tolerant glycophyte [83], the low discharge limitation affects 71% of the wells due to the high-water demand of this palm species, even though more than 80% of the water sources do not reach the salinity threshold for the crop (Figure 6). These results demonstrate that tolerance of crops to salinity is important, but it is not the only option to cope with salinity problems in semi-arid regions [84,85].
Annual crops are also characterized by relatively high-water demand and varying degrees of salt tolerance [28,86,87]. Among the annual species studied, maize is the most salt-sensitive [28,36] and has the highest water requirement. For this crop, it was observed that only 13% of the wells are adequate for the cultivation of 1.0 ha under full irrigation, while 87% are limited by low discharge rate, high salinity, or both (Figure 3). However, when supplemental irrigation is used, the numbers are much more positive, reaching a level of adequacy of about 37%. For cotton and sorghum crops, levels of adequacy with the use of supplemental irrigation were even higher (Figure 4), given the high salt tolerance of these two crops [39,88], compared to maize. The beneficial effects of supplemental irrigation with brackish water have been demonstrated in the Brazilian semi-arid region, with high efficiency in productive and economic terms [37]. Supplemental irrigation also results in low accumulation of salts in the soil, and increases photosynthesis rates and water use efficiency, demonstrating that this practice reduces the water deficit without causing significant salt damage to the crop [68]. In the context of biosaline agriculture, supplemental irrigation can reduce the losses of rainfed agriculture, especially in periods of dry spells, and is a decisive tool to deal with the limitations of the water availability in semi-arid zones both currently and when considering the future risks associated with global climate change [89,90]. In our study, the systems with supplemental irrigation of maize with brackish water resulted in larger irrigable areas than for the cultivation of halophytes (Table 6).
Plant production systems with lower water requirements presented the best results (Figure 5), even with moderate tolerance to salt stress. The forage cactus, a species with CAM metabolism [91,92], contrasted with the coconut palm trees, presenting adequacy of salinity and water availability of 41%, while coconut reached only 19.5%. Therefore, for perennial crops, it is recommended that species with low water demand should be used. For forage cactus (Opuntia fícus, Nopalea cochenillifera, Opuntia sp., Opuntia stricta) the total annual irrigation does not exceed 200 mm, with a low salt load applied to the soil during the dry season. Forage cactus is an important energy source for animal feed, as it has a high content of carbohydrates, total digestible nutrients, and water [93,94,95], and can also be component of multiple systems involving the use of brackish water and fish or in systems intercropped with gliricidia and other plant species [44,96,97]. The use of mulch and other water and soil conservation techniques are also recommended for the cultivation of forage cactus and other species when irrigated with brackish water [20,98,99], considering the need to increase water use efficiency in the tropical semi-arid region [13].
The cultivation of forage cactus and supplemental irrigation of annual crops also stand out in terms of the potential irrigable area without salinity restrictions (Table 6), surpassing more salinity-tolerant crops such as halophytes and coconut palm trees, and with lower risks of soil degradation. For forage cactus, the total irrigable area would be more than 9000 ha, obtained from 6284 wells with brackish water, which represent about 25% of the total number of wells contained in the database (25,497 wells). If we consider the total of 160,000 wells in the Brazilian semi-arid region [20], the total number of wells with adequate brackish water would reach around 44,000, resulting in greater irrigable areas for forage cactus and other productive systems. However, the size of the enterprise is limited by the discharge rate of each well, and effort must be made towards having a diversification of biosaline agriculture systems in areas of family farming, which can produce food to boost local businesses and fodder to feed the animals on farms. It should be noted that 65% of rural establishments in the Northeast Region of Brazil have an area of less than 10 ha, and 79% of establishments are classified as family farming [100], which strengthens the need for diversification of production systems as a way of achieving social and economic sustainability of family production.
Plant systems in nurseries reach high levels of adequacy (Figure 7), including coconut seedlings (83%), cashew seedlings (69%), and tree species native to the Caatinga biome/ornamental plants (61%). This decreasing suitability is in accordance with the salt tolerance of the species in the initial growth stage, which decreases in the same order [62,101,102,103]. For the hydroponic production of leafy vegetables, the adequacy level reached about 58%; this system has aroused the interest of researchers and farmers in the Brazilian semi-arid region [104,105,106]. Hydroponics can also be included in solar energy production systems, using semi-transparent panels [107].
The production of tilapia in tanks presents a high degree of adaptability to salinity and requires little water, reaching a degree of adequacy greater than 80% (Figure 9). According to [21], the potential for using brackish water in the Brazilian semi-arid region is higher for pisciculture than for agriculture. Fish farming can also be done in combination with plant systems, such as halophytes, supplemental irrigation, seedling production, hydroponic cultivation, and forage cactus production, with a high degree of adequacy, as biosaline systems (Figure 8). These combined systems allow the multiple use of water, as well as the use of nutrients contained in wastewater from fish farming [108,109,110,111]. Obviously, the degree of adequacy decreases for the combined crop, as demonstrated by comparing Figure 8 (associations of tilapia with vegetables) and Figure 9 (only tilapia cultivation). These differences are explained by the limitation of salinity in glycophytes or by the greater water demand of plant systems. The shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei is also tolerant of high salinity [112] and its cultivation has grown in Brazilian inland areas [82]. The option exists for it to form associations with glycophytes and halophytes using brackish water, despite requiring greater investment and more technology than tilapia farming. Therefore, associations between fish (or shrimp) and vegetables increase the opportunities for productive, economic, and environmental sustainability in semi-arid environments.
It is important to point out that the sustainability of production systems with brackish water requires adequate management and monitoring, especially in irrigated systems, considering the edaphoclimatic conditions in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Soil and water management techniques must be implemented, such as in situ water collection and soil cover (mulch), to increase the indicators of efficient use of water. Seasonal rains will favor the leaching of excess salts from the soil, avoiding environmental damage and losses to the farmer. However, soil fertility maintenance strategies are also recommended, such as the incorporation of crop residues, manure application, and use of wastewater sources present on farm, including treated wastewater. These techniques will contribute to the environmental sustainability of biosaline systems of family farming in semi-arid regions.

5. Conclusions

Our data show that the potential of brackish groundwater resources in the Brazilian semi-arid region depends on the set of data from the production system (salt tolerance and water demand) and the water source (water salinity and discharge rate). The joint analysis of these data shows that plant production systems with lesser water requirements (forage cactus, supplemental irrigation, hydroponic cultivation, and seedling production in nurseries) presented better results than more salt-tolerant species, including halophytes and coconut orchards.
About 41, 43, 58, 69, and 82% of wells have enough discharge rates to irrigate forage cactus (1.0 ha), sorghum (1.0 ha of supplemental irrigation), hydroponic cultivation, cashew seedlings, and coconut seedlings, respectively, without restrictions in terms of salinity. Otherwise, 65.8 and 71.2% of wells do not have enough water productivity to irrigate an area of 1.0 ha with halophytes and coconut palm trees, respectively, although more than 98.3 and 90.7% do not reach the salinity threshold for these crops. These results demonstrate that the use of quantitative and qualitative data generates more realistic information related to the potential of brackish water for agricultural purposes, and this type of evaluation should be recommended to other semi-arid regions worldwide.
Our data also indicate the need for diversification and for use of multiple systems on farms (intercropping with different plant species, association of fish/shrimp with plants, hydroponics/solar farming), to guarantee the sustainability of biosaline agriculture in the semi-arid regions, especially for family farming. However, an economic analysis of different systems should also be investigated in the future, indicating those that may result in greater net income for farmers. All these data will serve as a basis for formulating public policies aimed at the economic and social sustainability of family farming in tropical drylands.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.I.N.L., C.F.d.L., A.L.R.N., C.C.d.A.C., A.O.d.S. and F.B.L.; methodology, C.I.N.L., C.F.d.L., A.L.R.N., A.O.d.S., C.C.d.A.C. and H.R.G.; investigation, C.I.N.L., H.C.S., R.d.S.N., C.F.d.L., A.L.R.N. and A.O.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.I.N.L., C.F.d.L., H.C.S., R.d.S.N. and H.R.G.; writing—review and editing, C.I.N.L., C.C.d.A.C., G.G.d.S., R.N.T.C., F.B.L. and S.C.R.V.L.; project administration, C.F.d.L.; funding acquisition, C.F.d.L. and S.C.R.V.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Scientist Chief Program (Convênio 14/2022, ADECE-SEDET-FUNCAP), Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico–Funcap (Process number 08126425/2020), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico–CNPq (Process number 309174/2019-8).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are due to the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Agência de Desenvolvimento do Ceará (ADECE), Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Trabalho do Ceará (SEDET), Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvovlimento Cinetífico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP), and Programa Cientista-Chefe, Brazil, for the financial support provided for this research and award of fellowship to the first author. The authors also thank the Superintendência de Obras Hidráulicas do Ceará (SOHIDRA) and the Serviço Geológico do Brasil (CPRM) that provided the database for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Marengo, J.A.; Bernasconi, M. Regional differences in aridity/drought conditions over Northeast Brazil: Present state and future projections. Clim. Chang. 2015, 129, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Muralikrishnan, L.; Padaria, R.N.; Choudhary, A.K.; Dass, A.; Shokralla, S.; El-Abedin, T.K.Z.; Abdelmohsen, S.A.M.; Mahmoud, E.A.; Elansary, H.O. Climate change-induced drought impacts, adaptation and mitigation measures in semi-arid pastoral and agricultural watersheds. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lopes, F.B.; Andrade, E.M.; Aquino, D.N.; Lopes, J.F.B. Proposta de um índice de sustentabilidade do Perímetro Irrigado Baixo Acaraú, Ceará, Brasil. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2009, 40, 185–193. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cavalcante Júnior, R.G.; Freitas, M.A.V.; Silva, N.F.; Azevedo Filho, F.R. Sustainable groundwater exploitation aiming at the reduction of water vulnerability in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Energies 2019, 12, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Andrade, E.M.; Guerreiro, M.J.S.; Palácio, H.A.Q.; Campos, D.A. Ecohydrology in a Brazilian tropical dry forest: Thinned vegetation impact on hydrological functions and ecosystem services. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2020, 27, 100649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Silva, F.J.A.; Araújo, A.L.; Souza, R.O. Águas subterrâneas no Ceará—poços instalados e salinidade. Rev. Tecnol. 2007, 28, 136–159. [Google Scholar]
  7. Batistão, A.C.; Holthusen, D.; Reichert, J.M.; Portela, J.C. Soil solution composition affects microstructure of tropical saline alluvial soils in semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 203, 104662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santacruz-de León, G.; Moran-Ramírez, J.; Ramos-Leal, J.A. Impact of drought and groundwater quality on agriculture in a semi-arid zone of Mexico. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alvalá, R.C.S.; Cunha, A.P.M.A.; Brito, S.S.B.; Seluchi, M.E.; Marengo, J.A.; Moraes, O.L.L.; Carvalho, M.A. Drought monitoring in the Brazilian Semiarid region. An. Acad Bras. Ciênc. 2019, 91, e20170209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Melati, M.D.; Fleischmann, A.S.; Fan, F.M.; Paiva, R.C.D.; Athayde, G.B. Estimates of groundwater depletion under extreme drought in the Brazilian semi-arid region using GRACE satellite data: Application for a small-scale aquifer. Hydrogeol. J. 2019, 27, 2789–2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marengo, J.A.; Torres, R.R.; Alves, L.M. Drought in Northeast Brazil—past, present, and future. Theor. Appl Climatol. 2017, 129, 1189–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gao, X.; Qu, Z.; Huo, Z.; Tang, P.; Qiao, S. Understanding the role of shallow groundwater in improving field water productivity in arid areas. Water 2020, 12, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Frizzone, J.A.; Lima, S.C.R.V.; Lacerda, C.F.; Mateos, L. Socio-economic indexes for water use in irrigation in a representative basin of the tropical semiarid region. Water 2021, 13, 2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Andrade, E.M.; Lopes, F.B.; Palácio, H.A.Q.; Aquino, D.N.; Alexandre, D.M.B. Land use and groundwater quality: The case of Baixo Acaraú Irrigated Perimeter, Brazil. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2010, 41, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peter, S.; de Araújo, J.C.; Araújo, N.; Herrmann, H.J. Flood avalanches in a semiarid basin with a dense reservoir network. J. Hydrol. 2014, 512, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Nunes, K.G.; Costa, R.N.T.; Cavalcante, I.N.; Gondim, R.S.; Lima, S.C.R.V.; Mateos, L. Groundwater resources for agricultural purposes in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2022, 26, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. ANA—Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br (accessed on 3 October 2022).
  18. CPRM—Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais. SIAGAS—Sistema de Informações de Águas Subterrâneas. November 2022. Available online: http://siagasweb.cprm.gov.br/layout/index.php (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  19. Silva Júnior, L.G.A.; Gheyi, H.R.; Medeiros, J.F. Composição química de águas do cristalino do nordeste brasileiro. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 1999, 3, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lacerda, C.F.; Gheyi, H.R.; Medeiros, J.F.; Costa, R.N.T.; Sousa, G.G.; Lima, G.S. Strategies for the use of brackish water for crop production in Northeastern Brazil. In Saline and Alkaline Soils in Latin America; Taleisnik, E., Lavado, R.S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 71–99. [Google Scholar]
  21. Amaral, K.D.S.; Navoni, J.A. Desalination in rural communities of the Brazilian semi-arid region: Potential use of brackish concentrate in local productive activities. Proces. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 169, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Silva, J.E.S.B.; Matias, J.R.; Guirra, K.S.; Aragão, C.A.; Araújo, G.G.L.; Dantas, B.F. Development of seedlings of watermelon cv. Crimson Sweet irrigated with biosaline water. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2015, 19, 835–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Munns, R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zörb, C.; Geilfus, C.M.; Dietz, K.J. Salinity and crop yield. Plant Biol. 2018, 21, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ferreira, J.F.S.; Liu, X.; Suddarth, S.R.P.; Nguyen, C.; Sandhu, D. NaCl accumulation, shoot biomass, antioxidant capacity, and gene expression of Passiflora edulis f. Flavicarpa Deg. in response to irrigation waters of moderate to high salinity. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liang, W.; Ma, X.; Wan, P.; Liu, L. Plant salt-tolerance mechanism: A review. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 495, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Torres Mendonça, A.J.; de Silva, A.A.R.; Lima, G.S.D.; de Soares, L.A.A.; Nunes Oliveira, V.K.; Gheyi, H.R.; de Lacerda, C.F.; de Azevedo, C.A.V.; de Lima, V.L.A.; Fernandes, P.D. Salicylic acid modulates okra tolerance to salt stress in hydroponic system. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ayers, R.S.; Westcot, D.W. Water Quality for Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 1985; p. 174. [Google Scholar]
  29. FAO; AWC. Guidelines for Brackish Water Use for Agricultural Production in the Near East and North Africa Region; FAO: Cairo, Egypt, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. SUDENE—Superintendência do Desenvolvimento do Nordeste. Nova Delimitação do Semiárido. 2017. Available online: http://antigo.sudene.gov.br/images/arquivos/semiarido/arquivos/Rela%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_Munic%C3%ADpios_Semi%C3%A1rido.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2020).
  31. Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Gonçalves, J.L.M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. CODEVASF—Companhia de Desenvolvimento dos Vales do São Francisco e do Parnaíba. Caderno de caracterização: Estado do Ceará. 2022. Available online: https://www.codevasf.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/institucional/biblioteca-geraldo-rocha/publicacoes/outras-publicacoes/caderno-de-caracterizacao-estado-do-ceara.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2022).
  33. Porto, E.R.; Amorim, M.C.C.; Dutra, M.T.; Paulino, R.V.; Brito, L.T.L.; Matos, A.N.B. Rendimento da Atriplex nummularia irrigada com efluentes da criação de tilápia em rejeito da dessalinização da água. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2006, 10, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Costa, C.S.B.; Bonilla, O.H. Halófitas brasileiras: Formas de cultivo e uso. In Manejo da Salinidade na Agricultura: Estudos Básicos e Aplicados; Gheyi, H.R., Dias, N.S., Lacerda, C.F., Gomes Filho, É., Eds.; INCTSal: Fortaleza, Brazil, 2016; pp. 243–258. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lacerda, C.F.; Sousa, G.G.; Silva, F.L.B.; Guimarães, F.V.A.; Silva, G.L.; Cavalcante, L.F. Soil salinization and maize and cowpea yield in the crop rotation system using saline waters. Eng. Agríc. 2011, 31, 663–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Barbosa, F.S.; Lacerda, C.F.; Gheyi, H.R.; Farias, G.C.; Silva Júnior, R.J.C.; Lage, Y.A.; Hernandez, F.F.F. Productivity and íon content in maize irrigated with saline water in a continuous or alternating system. Ciên. Rural 2012, 45, 1731–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Cavalcante, E.S.; Lacerda, C.F.; Costa, R.N.T.; Gheyi, H.R.; Pinho, L.L.; Bezerra, F.M.S.; Oliveira, A.C.; Canjá, J.F. Supplemental irrigation using brackish water on maize in tropical semi-arid regions of Brazil: Yield and economic analysis. Sci. Agric. 2021, 78, e20200151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cavalcante, Í.H.L.; Oliveira, F.A.; Cavalcante, L.F.; Beckmann, M.Z.; Campos, M.C.C.; Gondim, S.C. Crescimento e produção de duas cultivares de algodão irrigadas com água salinizadas. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2005, 9, 108–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Soares, L.A.A.; Fernandes, P.D.; Lima, G.S.; Gheyi, H.R.; Nobre, R.G.; Sá, F.V.S.; Moreira, R.C.L. Saline water irrigation strategies in two production cycles of naturally colored cotton. Irrig. Sci. 2020, 38, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vieira, M.R.; Lacerda, C.F.; Cândido, M.J.D.; Carvalho, P.L.; Costa, R.N.T.; Tabosa, J.N. Produtividade e qualidade da forragem de sorgo irrigadas com água salina. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2005, 9, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guimarães, M.J.M.; Simões, W.L.; Salviano, A.M.; Oliveira, A.R.; Silva, J.S.; Barros, J.R.A.; Willadino, L. Management for grain sorghum cultivation under saline water irigation. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2022, 26, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fonseca, V.A.; Santos, M.R.; Silva, J.A.; Donato, S.L.R.; Rodrigues, C.S.; Brito, C.F.B. Morpho-phusiology, yield, and water-use efficiency of Opuntia fícus-indica irrigated with saline water. Acta Sci. Agron. 2019, 41, e42631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Santos, N.S.; Silva, J.C.S.; Pereira, W.S.; Melo, J.L.R.; Lima, K.V.; Lima, D.O.; Lima, K.F.; Almeida, R.S. Crescimento da palma forrageira sob estresse salino e diferentes lâminas de irrigação. Rev. Craibeiras Agroecol. 2020, 5, e9452. [Google Scholar]
  44. Araújo, G.G.L.; Silva, T.G.F.; Campos, F.S. Agricultura biossalina e uso de águas salobras na produção de forragem. In Agricultura Irrigada em Ambientes Salinos; Cerqueira, P.R.S., Lacerda, C.F., Araújo, G.G.L., Gheyi, H.R., Simões, W.L., Eds.; CODEVASF: Brasília, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 174–211. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pereira, M.C.A.; Azevedo, C.A.V.; Dantas Neto, J.; Pereira, M.O.; Ramos, J.G.; Nunes, K.G.; Lyra, G.B.; Saboya, L.M.F. Production of forage palm cultivars (Orelha de Elefante Mexicana, IPA-Sertânia and Miúda) under different salinity levels in irrigation water. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2021, 15, 977–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carneiro, P.T.; Fernandes, P.D.; Gheyi, H.R.; Soares, F.A.L. Germinação e crescimento inicial de genótipos de cajueiro anão-precoce em condições de salinidade. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2002, 6, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Guilherme, E.A.; Lacerda, C.F.; Bezerra, M.A.; Prisco, J.T.; Gomes Filho, E. Desenvolvimento de plantas adultas de cajueiro anão precoce irrigadas com águas salinas. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2005, 9, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Araújo, L.F.; Lima, R.E.M.; Costa, L.O.; Silveira, Ê.M.C.; Bezerra, M.A. Alocação de íons e crescimento de plantas de cajueiro anão-precoce irrigadas com água salina no campo. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2014, 18, S34–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ferreira Neto, M.; Gheyi, H.R.; Holanda, J.S.; Medeiros, J.F.; Fernandes, P.D. Qualidade do fruto verde de coqueiro em função da irrigação com água salina. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2002, 6, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marinho, F.J.L.; Ferreira Neto, M.; Gheyi, H.R.; Fernandes, P.D.; Viana, S.B.A. Uso de água salina na irrigação do coqueiro (Cocus nucifera L.). Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2005, 9, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gheyi, H.R.; Ferreira Neto, M.; Marinho, F.J.L.; Fernandes, P.D.; Holanda, J.S.; Soares, F.A.L. Response of green coconut Anão under saline water irrigation. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, Lahore, Pakistan, 13–18 October 2008; Volume 1, pp. 675–692. [Google Scholar]
  52. Silva, M.G.; Oliveira, I.S.; Soares, T.M.; Gheyi, H.R.; Santana, G.O.; Pinho, J.S. Growth, production and water consumption of coriander in hydroponic system using brackish waters. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2018, 22, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Soares, H.R.; Silva, Ê.F.F.; Silva, G.F.; Cruz, A.F.S.; Santos Júnior, J.A.; Rolim, M.M. Salinity and flow rates of nutrients solution on cauliflower biometrics in NFT hydroponic system. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2020, 24, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sousa, C.A.; Silva, A.O.; Santos, J.S.G.; Lacerda, C.F.; Silva, G.F. Production of watercress with brackish water and different circulation times for the nutrient solution. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2020, 51, e20196775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Silva, M.G.; Silva, P.C.C.; Cova, A.M.W.; Gheyi, H.R.; Soares, T.M. Experiências com o uso de águas salobras em hidroponia no nordeste brasileiro. In Agricultura Irrigada em Ambientes Salinos; Cerqueira, P.R.S., Lacerda, C.F., Araújo, G.G.L., Gheyi, H.R., Simões, W.L., Eds.; CODEVASF: Brasília, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 290–310. [Google Scholar]
  56. Marinho, F.J.L.; Gheyi, H.R.; Fernandes, P.D. Germinação e formação de mudas de coqueiro irrigadas com água salina. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2005, 9, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lima, B.L.C. Respostas Fisiológicas e Morfométricas na Produção de Mudas de Coqueiro Anão Irrigado com Água Salina. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Agrícola)—Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza. 2014. Available online: https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/10566/1/2014_dis_blclima.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  58. Sousa, A.B.O.; Bezerra, M.A.; Farias, F.C. Germinação e desenvolvimento inicial de clones de cajueiro comum sob irrigação com água salina. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2011, 15, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Freitas, V.S.; Marques, E.C.; Bezerra, M.A.; Prisco, J.T.; Gomes-Filho, E. Crescimento e acúmulo de íons em plantas de cajueiro anão precoce em diferentes tempos de exposição à salinidade. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2013, 34, 3341–3352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sousa, V.F.O.; Santos, G.L.; Maia, J.M.; Maia Júnior, S.O.; Santos, J.P.O.; Costa, J.E.; Silva, A.F.; Dias, T.J.; Ferreira-Silva, S.L.; Taniguchi, C.A.K. Salinity-tolerant dwarf cashew rootstock has better ionic homeostasis and morphophysiological performance of seedlings. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2023, 27, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sousa Neto, O.N.; Dias, N.S.; Ferreira Neto, M.; Lira, R.B.; Rebouças, J.R.L. Utilização do rejeito da dessalinização da água na produção de mudas de espécies da Caatinga. Rev. Caatinga 2011, 24, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  62. Oliveira, E.V.; De Lacerda, C.F.; Neves, A.L.R.; Gheyi, H.R.; Oliveira, D.R.; De Oliveira, F.Í.F.; De Araújo Viana, T.V. A new method to evaluate salt tolerance of ornamental plants. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2018, 30, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lacerda, C.F.; Oliveira, E.V.; Neves, A.L.R.; Gheyi, H.R.; Bezerra, M.A.; Costa, C.A.G. Morphophysiological responses and mechanisms of salt tolerance in four ornamental perennial species under tropical climate. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2020, 24, 656–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Santos, J.W.G.; Lacerda, C.F.; Oliveira, A.C.; Mesquita, R.O.; Bezerra, A.M.E.; Marques, E.S.; Neves, A.L.R. Quantitative and qualitative responses of Euphorbia milii and Zamioculcas zamiifolia exposed to different levels of salinity and luminosity. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2022, 53, e20218070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Likongwe, J.S.; Stecko, T.D.; Stauffer Junior, J.R.; Carline, R.F. Combined effects of water temperature and salinity on growth and feed utilization of juvenile Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Linneaus). Aquaculture 1996, 146, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kamal, A.H.M.M.; Mair, G.C. Salinity tolerance in superior genotypes of tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, Oreochromis mossambicus and their hybrids. Aquaculture 2005, 247, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Souza, A.C.M.; Dias, N.S.; Arruda, M.V.M.; Fernandes, C.S.; Alves, H.R.; Nobre, G.T.N.; Peixoto, M.L.L.F.; Sousa Neto, O.N.; Silva, M.R.F.; Silva, F.V.; et al. Economic analysis and development of the nile tilapia cultivated in the nursery using reject brine as water support. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cavalcante, E.S.; Lacerda, C.F.; Mesquita, R.O.; de Melo, A.S.; da Silva Ferreira, J.F.; dos Santos Teixeira, A.; Lima, S.C.R.V.; da Silva Sales, J.R.; de Souza Silva, J.; Gheyi, H.R. Supplemental irrigation with brackish water improves carbon assimilation and water use efficiency in maize under tropical dryland conditions. Agriculture 2022, 12, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Cultivo do Milho. 2010. Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/81707/1/Manejo-irrigacao.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2022).
  70. Bastos, E.A.; Ferreira, V.M.; Silva, C.R.; Andrade Júnior, A.S. Evapotranspiração e coeficiente de cultivo do feijão-caupi no vale do Gurguéia, Piauí. Irriga 2008, 13, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Sorgo: Oprodutor Pergunta, a Embrapa Responde. 2015. Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/215310/1/500-perguntas-sorgo.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
  72. Pereira, M.O. Desempenho Agronômico da Palma Forrageira sob Lâminas de Irrigação e Níveis de Salinidade da Água. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, Brazil, 2020. Available online: http://dspace.sti.ufcg.edu.br:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/riufcg/12665/MARIANA%20DE%20OLIVEIRA%20PEREIRA%20-%20TESE%20%28PPGEA%29%202020.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 13 September 2022).
  73. Freitas, W.F.R. Palma Forrageira Opuntia Fícus-Indica (L.) Mill e Nopalea Cochenilifera (L.) Salm-Dyck; Universidade Federal de Campina Grande: Campina Grande, Brazil, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  74. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Sistemas de Produção—Cultivo do Cajueiro Anão Precoce. 2008; 44p, Available online: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstream/doc/421404/1/Sp012aed.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
  75. Nogueira, L.C.; Nogueira, L.R.Q.; Miranda, F.R. Irrigação do coqueiro. In A Cultura do Coqueiro no Brasil; Ferreira, J.M.S., Warwick, D.R.N., Siqueira, L.A., Eds.; EMBRAPA/CPATC: Brasília, Brazil, 2018; pp. 159–187. [Google Scholar]
  76. EMBRAPA—Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Adubando para Alta Produtividade e Qualidade: Fruteiras Tropicais do Brasil. 2009. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/658334/adubando-para-alta-produtividade-e-qualidade-fruteiras-tropicais-do-brasil (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  77. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System; Open Source Geospatial Foundation: Girona, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  78. Flowers, T.J.; Galal, H.K.; Bromham, L. Evolution of halophytes: Multiple origins of salt tolerance in land plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 2010, 37, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Holguin Peña, R.J.; Medina-Hernández, D.; Ghasemi, M.; Rueda Puente, E.O. Salt tolerant plants as a valuable resource for sustainable food production in arid and saline coastal zones. Acta Bio. Colomb. 2021, 26, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Masters, D.G.; Benes, S.E.; Norman, C. Biosaline agriculture for forage and livestock production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Panta, S.; Flowers, T.; Lane, P.; Doyle, R.; Haros, G.; Shabala, S. Halophyte agriculture: Success stories. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 107, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gheyi, H.R.; Lacerda, C.F.; Freire, M.B.G.S.; Costa, R.N.T.; Souza, E.R.; Silva, A.O.; Fracetto, G.G.M.; Cavalcante, L.F. Management and reclamation of salt-affected soils: General assessment and experiences in the Brazilian semiarid region. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2022, 53, e20217917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Santos, M.M.S.; Lacerda, C.F.; Neves, A.L.R.; Sousa, C.H.C.; Ribeiro, A.A.; Bezerra, M.A.; Araújo, I.C.S.; Gheyi, H.R. Ecophysiology of the tall coconut growing under different coastal areas of northeastern Brazil. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 232, 106047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Medeiros, W.J.F.; Oliveira, F.Í.F.; Lacerda, C.F.; Sousa, C.H.C.; Cavalcante, L.F.; Silva, A.R.A.; Ferreira, J.F.S. Isolated and combined effects of soil salinity and waterlogging in seedlings of ‘Green Dwarf’ coconut. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2018, 39, 1459–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Rengasamy, P.; Lacerda, C.F.; Gheyi, H.R. Salinity, Sodicity and Alkalinity. In Subsoil Constraints for Crop Production; Oliveira, T.S., Bell, R.W., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 83–107. [Google Scholar]
  86. de Ribeiro, A.A.; de Lacerda, C.F.; Neves, A.L.R.; Sousa, C.H.C.; dos Braz, R.S.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Pereira, J.M.G.; de Ferreira, J.F.S. Uses and losses of nitrogen by maize and cotton plants under salt stress. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 67, 1119–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dourado, P.R.M.; de Souza, E.R.; Santos, M.A.; Lins, C.M.T.; Monteiro, D.R.; Paulino, M.K.S.S.; Schaffer, B. Stomatal regulation and osmotic adjustment in sorghum in response to salinity. Agriculture 2022, 12, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hostetler, A.N.; Govindarajulu, R.; Hawkins, J.S. QTL mapping in an interspecific sorghum population uncovers candidate regulators of salinity tolerance. Plant Stress 2021, 2, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chauhan, C.P.S.; Singh, R.B.; Gupta, S.K. Supplemental irrigation of wheat with saline water. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nangia, V.; Oweis, T.; Kemeze, F.H.; Schnetzer, J. Supplemental Irrigation: A Promising Climate-Smart Practice for Dryland Agriculture. Wageningen. CGIAR/CCAFS. 2018. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/92142/GACSA%20Practice%20Brief%20Supplemental%20Irrigation.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2020).
  91. Borland, A.M.; Griffiths, H.; Harwell, J.; Smith, J.A.C. Exploiting the potential of plants with crassulacean acid metabolism for bioenergy production on marginal lands. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2879–2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cushman, J.C.; Davis, S.C.; Yang, X.H.; Borland, A.M. Development and use of bioenergy feedstocks for semi-arid and arid lands. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 4177–4193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Costa, R.G.; Trevino, I.H.; Medeiros, G.R.; Medeiros, A.N.; Pinto, T.F.; Oliveira, R.L. Effects of replacing corn with cactus pear (Opuntia ficus indica Mill) on the performance of Santa Inês lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 102, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Rocha Filho, R.R.; Santos, D.C.; Véras, A.S.C.; Siqueira, M.C.B.; Novaes, L.P.; Mora-Luna, R.; Monteiro, C.C.F.; Ferreira, M.A. Can spineless forage cactus be the queen of forage crops in dryland areas? J. Arid Environ. 2021, 186, 104426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ravari, F.N.; Tahmasbi, R.; Dayani, O.; Khezri, A. Cactus-alfalfa blend silage as an alternative feedstuff for Saanen dairy goats: Effect on feed intake, milk yield and components, blood and rumen parameters. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 216, 106811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Miranda, K.R.; Dubeux Junior, J.C.B.; Mello, A.C.L.; Silva, M.C.; Santos, M.V.F.; Santos, D.C. Forage production and mineral composition of cactus intercropped with legumes and fertilized with different sources of manure. Ciên. Rural 2019, 49, e20180324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Silva Brito, G.S.M.; Santos, E.M.; de Araújo, G.G.L.; de Oliveira, J.S.; Zanine, A. de M.; Perazzo, A.F.; Campos, F.S.; Lima, A.G.V. de O.; Cavalcanti, H.S. Mixed silages of cactus pear and gliricidia: Chemical composition, fermentation characteristics, microbial population and aerobic stability. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Souza, M.S.; Freire da Silva, T.G.; De Souza, L.S.B.; Alves, H.K.M.N.; Leite, R.M.C.; De Souza, C.A.A.; Araújo, G.G.L.; Campos, F.S.; Silva, M.J.; De Souza, P.J.O.P. Growth, phenology and harvesting time of cactus-millet intercropping system under biotic mulching. Arch. Agro Soil Sci. 2020, 67, 764–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Alves, H.K.M.N.; Silva, T.G.F.; Jardim, A.M.R.F.; Souza, L.S.B.; Araújo Júnior, J.N.; Souza, C.A.A.; Moura, M.S.B.; Araújo, G.G.L.; CAMPOS, F.S.; Cruz Neto, J.F. The use of mulch in cultivating the forage cactus optimizes yield in less time and increases the water use efficiency of the crop. Irrig. Drain. 2022, 4, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. IPEA—Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Agricultura Nordestina: Análise Comparativa Entre os Censos Agropecuários de 2006 e 2017. 2021; 42p. Available online: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/10758 (accessed on 29 September 2022).
  101. Abreu, C.E.B.; Prisco, J.T.; Nogueira, A.R.C.; Lacerda, C.F.; Gomes-Filho, E.G. Physiological and biochemical changes occurring in dwarf-cashew seedlings subjected to salt stress. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2008, 20, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Lima, B.L.C.; Lacerda, C.F.; Ferreira Neto, M.; Ferreira, J.F.S.; Bezerra, A.M.E.; Marques, E.C. Physiological and ionic changes in dwarf coconut seedlings irrigated with saline water. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2017, 21, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Bessa, M.C.; Lacerda, C.F.; Amorim, A.V.; Bezerra, A.M.E.; Lima, A.D. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in seedlings of six woody native species of the Brazilian semi-arid. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2017, 48, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Leal, L.Y.C.; Souza, E.R.; Santos Júnior, J.A.; Santos, M.A. Comparison of soil and hydroponic cultivation systems for spinach irrigated with brackish water. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 274, 109616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bione, M.A.A.; Soares, T.M.; Cova, A.M.W.; Paz, V.P.S.; Gheyi, H.R.; Rafael, M.R.S.; Modesto, F.J.N.; Santana, J.A.; Neves, B.S.L. Hydroponic production of ‘Biquinho’ pepper with brackish water. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Navarro, F.E.C.; Santos Junior, J.A.; Martins, J.B.; Cruz, R.I.F.; Silva, M.M.; Medeiros, S.S. Physiological aspects and production of coriander using nutrient solutions prepared in different brackish waters. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2022, 26, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Xu, Z.; Elomri, A.; Al-Ansari, T.; Kerbache, L.; El Mekkawy, T. Decisions on design and planning of solar-assisted hydroponic farms under various subsidy schemes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Graber, A.; Junge, R. Aquaponic systems: Nutrient recycling from fish wastewater by vegetable production. Desalination 2009, 246, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kaburagi, E.; Yamada, M.; Baba, T.; Fujiyama, H.; Murillo-Amador, B.; Yamada, S. Aquaponics using saline groundwater: Effect of adding microelements to fish wastewater on the growth of Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris L. spp. cicla). Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 227, 105851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kien, T.T.; Thao, N.T.P.; Thanh, T.V.; Hieu, T.T.; Son, L.T.; Schnitzer, H.; Luu, T.L.; Hai, L.T. Nitrogen conversion efficiency in the integrated catfish farming system toward closed ecosystem in Mekong delta, Vietnam. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 168, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Andrade, M.S.; Sousa, J.F.; Morais, M.B.; Albuquerque, C.C. Saline pisciculture effluent as an alternative for irrigation of Croton blanchetianus (Euphorbiaceae). Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola e Ambient. 2023, 27, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Maicá, P.F.; Borba, M.R.; Martins, T.G.; Wasielesky Junior, W. Effect of salinity on performance and body composition of Pacific white shrimp juveniles reared in a super-intensive system. R. Bras. Zootec. 2014, 43, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agriculture 13 00550 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographic location of the study area. The acronyms indicate the states of the Northeast Region of Brazil that border the State of Ceará—CE: MA = Maranhão; PI = Piauí; RN = Rio Grande do Norte; PB = Paraiba; PE = Pernambuco.
Figure 1. Geographic location of the study area. The acronyms indicate the states of the Northeast Region of Brazil that border the State of Ceará—CE: MA = Maranhão; PI = Piauí; RN = Rio Grande do Norte; PB = Paraiba; PE = Pernambuco.
Agriculture 13 00550 g001
Agriculture 13 00550 g002 550
Figure 2. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of halophytes in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 2. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of halophytes in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g002
Agriculture 13 00550 g003 550
Figure 3. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of maize in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and supplemental irrigation of maize in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 3. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of maize in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and supplemental irrigation of maize in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g003
Agriculture 13 00550 g004 550
Figure 4. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for supplemental irrigation of sorghum in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and supplementary irrigation of cotton in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 4. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for supplemental irrigation of sorghum in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and supplementary irrigation of cotton in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g004
Agriculture 13 00550 g005 550
Figure 5. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of forage cactus in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 5. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for full irrigation of forage cactus in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g005
Agriculture 13 00550 g006 550
Figure 6. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for coconut irrigation in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and cashew irrigation in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 6. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for coconut irrigation in 0.5 ha (A) and 1.0 ha (B), and cashew irrigation in 0.5 ha (C) and 1.0 ha (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g006
Agriculture 13 00550 g007 550
Figure 7. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) to produce 2000 seedlings in nurseries of coconut (A), cashew (B), and trees native to the Caatinga biome/ornamental plants (C)), and to produce vegetables in hydroponic cultivation of 100 m2 (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 7. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) to produce 2000 seedlings in nurseries of coconut (A), cashew (B), and trees native to the Caatinga biome/ornamental plants (C)), and to produce vegetables in hydroponic cultivation of 100 m2 (D), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g007
Agriculture 13 00550 g008 550
Figure 8. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for associations of fish (tilapia) plus glycophytes (A) and fish (tilapia) plus halophytes (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 8. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for associations of fish (tilapia) plus glycophytes (A) and fish (tilapia) plus halophytes (B), based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g008
Agriculture 13 00550 g009 550
Figure 9. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for raising tilapia in tanks with a total volume of 100 m3, based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Figure 9. Potential of brackish groundwater in the State of Ceará (Northeast Brazil) for raising tilapia in tanks with a total volume of 100 m3, based on the threshold electrical conductivity of the irrigation water (EC) and discharge rate (Q). ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Agriculture 13 00550 g009
Table
Table 1. Minimum, average, maximum, and median values for electrical conductivity of water (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), discharge rate, and depth of the 6284 wells with brackish water from the Ceará State database.
Table 1. Minimum, average, maximum, and median values for electrical conductivity of water (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), discharge rate, and depth of the 6284 wells with brackish water from the Ceará State database.
ParametersMinimumAverageMaximumMedian
EC (dS m−1)0.802.8929.401.97
TDS (mg L−1)508.81980.623,5201260.8
Discharge (m3 h−1)0.504.101802.48
Depth (m)11.569.3823370
Table
Table 2. Water salinity threshold for 15 production systems, assuming a maximum production loss of up to 10% (EC90).
Table 2. Water salinity threshold for 15 production systems, assuming a maximum production loss of up to 10% (EC90).
Production systemsEC90 (dS m−1) *References
1. Full irrigation of halophytes (Atriplex, Sarcorcórnia, etc.)11.4[33,34]
2. Full irrigation of maize1.7[28,35]
3. Supplemental irrigation of maize3.2[35,36,37]
4. Supplemental irrigation of cotton5.1[28,38,39]
5. Supplemental irrigation of sorghum5.0[28,40,41]
6. Irrigation of forage cactus3.0[42,43,44,45]
7. Irrigation of cashew orchards in sandy soils5.0[46,47,48]
8. Irrigation of coconut orchards in sandy soils6.0[49,50,51]
9. Hydroponics cultivation of vegetables 3.0[52,53,54,55]
10. Coconut seedlings4.5[56,57]
11. Cashew seedlings3.0[58,59,60]
12. Seedlings of tree species native to Caatinga biome2.5[61]
13. Herbaceous ornamental plants2.5[62,63,64]
14. Tilapia plus glycophytes3.0**
15. Tilapia plus halophytes9.0***
* Electrical conductivity measured at 25 °C; ** Threshold for the glycophyte systems that will be used in association with fish (supplemental irrigation, hydroponics, forage cactus, and seedling production in nurseries); *** Threshold value for tilapia cultivation, according to [65,66,67].
Table
Table 3. Minimum discharge rates (Q) required of wells for each production system *.
Table 3. Minimum discharge rates (Q) required of wells for each production system *.
Production Systems/Enterprise SizeRequired Water Discharge Rate
(m3 h−1)
Full irrigation of halophytes (Atriplex, Sarcorcórnia)—0.5 ha2.0
Full irrigation of halophytes (Atriplex, Sarcorcórnia)—1.0 ha4.0
Full irrigation of maize—0.5 ha2.5
Full irrigation of maize—1.0 ha5.0
Supplemental irrigation of annual crops (maize, cotton, sorghum)—0.5 ha1.25
Supplemental irrigation of annual crops (maize, cotton, sorghum)—1.0 ha2.50
Irrigation of forage cactus—0.5 ha1.0
Irrigation of forage cactus—1.0 ha2.0
Irrigation of cashew orchards in sandy soils—0.5 ha1.6
Irrigation of cashew orchards in sandy soils—1.0 ha3.2
Irrigation of coconut orchards in sandy soils—0.5 ha3.0
Irrigation of coconut orchards in sandy soils—1.0 ha6.0
Hydroponic cultivation of vegetables (100 m2)1.0
Cashew seedlings in nurseries (2000 seedlings)0.5
Coconut seedlings in nurseries (2000 seedlings)0.5
Seedlings of tree species native to Caatinga biome (2000 seedlings)0.5
Herbaceous ornamental plants (2000 plants)0.5
Tilapia plus glycophytes1.5
Tilapia plus halophytes2.5
Table
Table 4. Water quality criteria and well productivity.
Table 4. Water quality criteria and well productivity.
Electrical Conductivity (EC90)Discharge (Q)Symbol
Adequate (ad)Adequate (ad)ECad and Qad
Inadequate (nad)Adequate (ad)ECnad and Qad
Adequate (ad)Inadequate (nad)ECad and Qnad
Inadequate (nad)Inadequate (nad)ECnad and Qnad
Table
Table 5. Number and percentage of wells for the productive systems tested and considering the different suitability criteria.
Table 5. Number and percentage of wells for the productive systems tested and considering the different suitability criteria.
Production SystemsECad and Qad*ECnad and QadECad and QnadECnad and Qnad
Number of Wells(%)Number of Wells(%)Number of Wells(%)Number of Wells(%)
Full irrigation of halophyte (0.5 ha)363757.9701.1253940.4380.6
Full irrigation of halophyte (1.0 ha)211333.7290.5406364.6791.2
Full irrigation of maize (0.5 ha)141022.4172927.5126320.1188230.0
Full irrigation of maize (1.0 ha)79412.683913.3187930.0277244.1
Supplemental irrigation of maize (0.5 ha)327852.2124819.8121119.35478.7
Supplemental irrigation of maize (1.0 ha)231436.882513.1217534.697015.5
Supplemental irrigation of sorghum (0.5 ha)389862.062810.0146223.32964.7
Supplemental irrigation of sorghum (1.0 ha)273243.54076.5262841.85178.2
Supplemental irrigation of cotton (0.5 ha)393862.65889.3147723.52814.5
Supplemental irrigation of cotton (1.0 ha)276044.03796.0265542.24907.8
Irrigation of forage cactus (0.5 ha)362457.7160325.570311.23545.6
Irrigation of forage cactus (1.0 ha)259441.3110817.6173327.684913.5
Irrigation of coconut (0.5 ha)259241.22173.5310549.43705.9
Irrigation of coconut (1.0 ha)122519.5881.44997.9447271.2
Irrigation of cashew (0.5 ha)350155.75548.8185929.63705.9
Irrigation of cashew (1.0 ha)220835.13165.06089.7315250.2
Coconut seedlings (2000 seedlings)519582.7108917.3----
Cashew seedlings (2000 seedlings)432768.8195731.2----
Caatinga Seedlings/ornamental (2000 seedlings)385361.3243138.7----
Hydroponic cultivation (100 m2)362457.7160325.570311.23545.6
Tilapia farming plus glycophytes298247.5127220.2134521.468510.9
Tilapia farming plus halophytes304248,4971.5301648.01292.1
* ECad: adequate electrical conductivity; ECnad: inadequate electrical conductivity; Qad: adequate discharge; Qnad: inadequate discharge.
Table
Table 6. Potential of unrestricted irrigable area with brackish water from wells in the Brazilian semi-arid region.
Table 6. Potential of unrestricted irrigable area with brackish water from wells in the Brazilian semi-arid region.
Production SystemsIrrigable Area (ha)
1. Full irrigation of halophytes (Atriplex, Sarcorcórnia)6426
2. Full irrigation of maize2566
3. Supplemental irrigation of maize7970
4. Supplemental irrigation of sorghum9213
5. Supplemental irrigation of cotton9287
6. Irrigation of forage cactus9660
7. Irrigation of coconut in sandy soils4026
8. Irrigation of cashew in sandy soils7197
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

Lessa, C.I.N.; de Lacerda, C.F.; Cajazeiras, C.C.d.A.; Neves, A.L.R.; Lopes, F.B.; Silva, A.O.d.; Sousa, H.C.; Gheyi, H.R.; Nogueira, R.d.S.; Lima, S.C.R.V.; et al. Potential of Brackish Groundwater for Different Biosaline Agriculture Systems in the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region. Agriculture 2023, 13, 550. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030550

AMA Style

Lessa CIN, de Lacerda CF, Cajazeiras CCdA, Neves ALR, Lopes FB, Silva AOd, Sousa HC, Gheyi HR, Nogueira RdS, Lima SCRV, et al. Potential of Brackish Groundwater for Different Biosaline Agriculture Systems in the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region. Agriculture. 2023; 13(3):550. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030550

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lessa, Carla Ingryd Nojosa, Claudivan Feitosa de Lacerda, Cláudio Cesar de Aguiar Cajazeiras, Antonia Leila Rocha Neves, Fernando Bezerra Lopes, Alexsandro Oliveira da Silva, Henderson Castelo Sousa, Hans Raj Gheyi, Rafaela da Silva Nogueira, Silvio Carlos Ribeiro Vieira Lima, and et al. 2023. "Potential of Brackish Groundwater for Different Biosaline Agriculture Systems in the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region" Agriculture 13, no. 3: 550. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030550

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