Received: 28 April 2017 Revised: 6 November 2017 Accepted: 29 December 2017

DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2883

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Treated urban wastewater irrigation effects on bioenergy

sorghum biomass, quality, and soil salinity in an arid
environment
Girisha Ganjegunte1 | April Ulery2 | Genhua Niu1 | Yanqi Wu3

1
Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M
University System, El Paso, TX, USA Abstract
2
Plant and Environmental Sciences Land degradation due to elevated salinity and sodicity is a serious problem affecting many irrigated
Department, New Mexico State University, regions of the world. Salinity coupled with freshwater scarcity has forced many farmers in arid
Las Cruces, NM, USA regions to abandon agricultural lands. This study evaluated irrigation potential of marginal quality
3
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, treated urban wastewater to produce bioenergy sorghum on saline soils collected from an aban-
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK,
USA
doned degraded salt affected lands in Texas and New Mexico under greenhouse conditions. Study
results indicated that the energy sorghum biomass production and quality under wastewater irriga-
Correspondence
G. Ganjegunte, PhD, Associate Professor of tion were comparable to that irrigated with freshwater on nonsaline soils. Soil salinity especially in
Water Resources and Salinity Management, the subsurface increased over time under wastewater irrigation compared to that under freshwater
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas
irrigation. Soil sodicity (measured by sodium adsorption ratios) increased over time in all water–soil
A&M AgriLife Research Center, Texas A&M
University System, 1380 A&M Circle, El Paso, treatment combinations. Sodicity values were higher in treatments that received wastewater irri-
TX 79927‐5020, USA. gation with no addition of calcium to counter sodium. Although sodicity exceeded the threshold
Email: gkganjegunte@ag.tamu.edu
value, no impairment in soil permeability was observed. Study results indicated a great potential
for marginal quality water irrigation to improve degraded saline land productivity. Further field
Funding information
studies are required to confirm our greenhouse study results and the potential of bioenergy crops
South Central Sun Grant Initiative, Grant/
Award Number: AB‐5‐61770.2 TAMRF5 especially on saline soils and to highlight treated wastewater as a potential irrigation source.
Ganjegunte AB‐5‐61770.2 TAMRF5; USDA‐
Hatch project, Grant/Award Numbers: TEX0‐ KEY W ORDS
1‐9162 and 1001806
degraded saline land, freshwater scarcity, land development, marginal water quality, soil salinity and
sodicity, west Texas

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N parts of the United States, has experienced severe drought, and as a

Globally, land degradation due to elevated salinity is estimated to be
about a billion hectares (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations & Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, 2015).
The rate of land degradation due to elevated salinity in irrigated areas
is about 1.5 million hectares per year, which results in an annual reve-
nue loss of $12 billion (Umali, 1993). In North America, about 15.8 mil-
lion hectares are salt affected. In the United States, most of land
degradation due to salt accumulation has occurred in the western parts
due to improper irrigation practices. Agriculture in the Rio Grande Pro-
ject area that covers parts of New Mexico (NM) and Texas (TX) is
totally dependent on irrigation because the annual precipitation is far
less than the potential evapotranspiration. A significant proportion of
irrigated area in the region suffers from salinity (Ganjegunte, Ulery,
Niu, & Wu, 2017; Cox et al., 2018). In recent years, TX, like many other
result, freshwater (FW) available to agriculture is declining. This scar-
city of water has also worsened the salinity situation as adequate
quantities of water required to leach salts below root zone are no lon-
ger available. Dual problems of elevated salinity and FW scarcity have
forced many growers to abandon their lands.
The cropping pattern in the region is dominated by just three crops—
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), pecan (Carya illinoinensis [Wang] K. Koch),
and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). These crops require higher amounts of
water (cotton, alfalfa, and pecan require 86, 153, and 153 cm per year,
respectively) because of high evapotranspiration rates in the region.
However, recent water allotments by the irrigation district have been
far lower than these needs ranging from 15 to 60 cm (Ganjegunte, Ulery,
Niu, & Wu, 2018; Ganjegunte & Clark, 2017). Consequently, growers in
the region are increasingly abandoning cotton and alfalfa fields that
occupy more than half of the irrigated acreage to salvage their cash crop

534 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ldr Land Degrad Dev. 2018;29:534–542.
GANJEGUNTE ET AL. 535

(pecan). The total area under production in southeastern NM and west TX
has declined from about 143,605 hectares in 1964 to 69,237 hectares in
2000 (Miyamoto, Yuan, & Anand, 2007; Texas Water Development Board
[TWDB], 2001). The latest figures are not readily available, but severe
drought in recent years has forced abandonment of even greater area.
Abandoned degraded salt affected agricultural lands can be devel-
oped if less water‐intensive crops (e.g., energy sorghum—Sorghum
biocolor L. [Moench]) can be irrigated with marginal quality waters that
are available in adequate quantities (Papanikolaou & Sakellariou‐
Makrantonaki, 2012; Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki & Dimakas, 2013;
Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, Giouvanis, Soulti, Papadakis, & Koliou,
2012; Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, Papalexis, Nakos, & Kalavrouziotis,
2007). Different marginal quality waters including brackish groundwa-
ter, produced water from the oil industry, reject water from power
plant cooling towers, and treated urban wastewater (WW) are avail-
able in western TX and southern NM and could be used to grow less
water‐intensive and salt‐tolerant energy sorghum (Maucieri et al.,
2016). The study region is home to El Paso, one of the largest cities
in TX, with a population of about 700,000 and annually treating 76 bil-
lion liters of urban WW. As only 13% of the treated WW is reused,
there is a great opportunity for utilizing this alternative water source.
Treated urban WW is increasingly being used for agriculture in
many parts of the globe (National Academies Press, 2012; Xu, Wu,
Chang, & Zhang, 2010). This increased reuse of treated urban WW is
due to a combination of factors such as prolonged drought, climate
variability, laws preventing direct discharge of WW into surface
waters, and the need to conserve FW (Assouline, Narkis, Gherabli, &
Sposito, 2016). Worldwide, estimated agricultural land area under
WW irrigation is about 20 million hectares (Corcoran et al., 2010). In
the United States, about 8% of total WW generated is reused and
the figures are far lower for TX and NM (Miller, 2006; TWDB, 2017).
Energy sorghum is a type of high biomass sorghum that has a long
vegetative growth phase. Consequently, energy sorghum has greater
light interception and higher radiation use efficiency (Rao et al.,
2016). It yields more than twice the biomass of grain sorghum ranging
between 15 and 40 Mg ha−1 (Packer & Rooney, 2014). In addition to
greater productivity, energy sorghum is drought and salt tolerant
(Promkhambut, Younger, Polthanee, & Akkasaeng, 2010). Energy
sorghum's theoretical ethanol yield is at least 25% higher than that of
grain sorghum (Rao et al., 2016). A type of forage sorghum sudangrass
(Sorghum bicolor var. Sudanese) is already being cultivated in the west
TX/southern NM region, and the amount of water required to grow
this crop is far less than the three major crops that dominate the
cropping pattern. This study evaluated the potential for energy sor-
ghum production with WW irrigation on salt‐affected soils collected
from southern NM and west TX under greenhouse conditions that sim-
ulated the regional climate.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Greenhouse experiment details
Study region is characterized by extremely arid conditions with an
annual potential evapotranspiration of 194 cm (Penman–Monteith
method), mean precipitation of 17 cm, wind speed of 1.21 m s−1, rela-
tive humidity of 48%, temperature range of −3.4 to 35.8 °C, and solar
radiation of 19.78 MJ m−2 day−1. Monthly average temperature, rela-
tive humidity, precipitation, and daily evapotranspiration details are
presented in Table 1.
Split‐plot design under greenhouse conditions that simulated tem-
perature, light, and humidity conditions of the region was used to deter-
mine the effects of two water qualities (main plots; treated WW and
FW) on two soil types (subplots) collected from two locations (Alamo-
gordo, NM, and El Paso, TX) that received two soil treatments
(subsubplots; gypsum + sulfur [G + S] and no amendments [NA]) at
two depths (repeated measures; 0–15 and 15–30 cm). Each water–
soil–amendment combination was replicated 3 times. The source of
treated WW was a nearby (Roberto Bustamante) WW treatment plant.
The treatment process consisted of screening, de‐gritting, pre‐aeration,
primary settling, aeration, secondary settling, and chlorine disinfection.
Source of FW was the tap water at the greenhouse, which is the filtered
and chlorine‐disinfected Rio Grande river water. Properties of fresh and
marginal quality waters used in the study are provided in Table 2.

TABLE 1 Long‐term climatic data for the study area

Potential evapotranspiration
Max temp. Min temp. Avg temp. Precipitation cm
Month °C °C °C Relative humidity % cm (Penman–Monteith)

January 15.7 −3.2 6.2 53.3 0.711 7.254

February 17.7 −1.4 8.2 47.0 0.889 10.304
March 21.3 2.0 11.7 39.6 0.711 16.151
April 26.6 6.9 16.8 37.6 0.483 20.130
May 31.4 11.0 21.2 38.4 0.508 23.529
June 35.8 16.2 26.0 40.2 1.473 24.990
July 35.4 19.1 27.3 51.9 3.505 23.064
August 34.4 17.6 24.9 55.5 3.353 21.669
September 31.9 13.6 22.8 55.1 2.667 17.760
October 27.1 6.8 16.9 53.4 1.346 13.702
November 20.0 0.4 10.2 51.3 0.610 9.000
December 15.4 −3.4 6.1 54.9 0.660 6.231
Annual (sum) 16.916 193.784
536 GANJEGUNTE ET AL.

TABLE 2 Selected properties of irrigation waters used for the study Cambic Gypsiorthids; U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural
(mean ± standard deviation) Resources Conservation Services [USDA‐NRCS], 2012).
Freshwater Treated wastewater As preexperiment soil sodicity (as measured by sodium adsorption

EC (dS m ) −1
1.3 ± 0.3 2.5 ± 0.4 ratio or SAR) values were already high (Table 3; see Section 2.3 for

pH 7.3 ± 0.4 7.0 ± 0.3 more details on methods) and WW also contained elevated amounts

SAR 5.3 ± 1.5 9.0 ± 2.3 of sodium (Table 2), gypsum was added to column soils to counter

B3+
(mg L )−1
0.2 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 the sodicity. Gypsum is a sparingly soluble salt, and to enhance its dis-

Ca 2+ −1
(mg L ) 69.7 ± 97.0 101.4 ± 118.9 solution, elemental sulfur was added to gypsum treatments. In soil, ele-

K+ (mg L−1) 32.2 ± 54.4 46.8 ± 59.6 mental S would be converted to sulfuric acid by microbes, and this

Mg 2+
(mg L ) −1
19.0 ± 27.8 31.0 ± 37.9 acidification can increase the solubility of gypsum. Gypsum and ele-
+
Na (mg L ) −1
184.8 ± 158.8 388.9 ± 310.3 mental S were added at the rates of 9 and 1.6 Mg ha−1, respectively.

NH4+ (mg L−1) – 10.02 ± 8.12 These rates were based on exchangeable sodium derived from soil

F− (mg L−1) 1.1 ± 0.9 2.0 ± 3.2 SAR values and the amount of Na that would be added by the WW
−
Cl (mg L ) −1
184.6 ± 96.3 374.5 ± 103.9 during the course of the study period. Because of the elevated salinity,
−
Br (mg L ) −1
0.1 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 1.7 it is a common practice in the study region to apply irrigation by sur-
−
NO3 (mg L ) −1
5.9 ± 3.6 61.8 ± 27.6 face flooding. We used the same method to apply a total of 69 cm of

PO43− (mg L−1) 2.3 ± 3.2 8.7 ± 5.0 irrigation water, which is the amount used to grow forage sudangrass

SO4 2−
(mg L ) −1
66.5 ± 66.2 192.8 ± 50.4 sorghum (Sorghum biocolor var. Sudanese) in some parts of the study

BOD5 (mg L ) −1
– 3.2 ± 0.9 region during periods of water scarcity. Because this amount was much

Fecal coliform – 3.3 ± 5.6 lower than the greenhouse evapotranspiration rate (194 cm), no drain-
(CFU 100 ml−1) age water was observed in this study.

Note. CFU = colony‐forming unit; EC = electrical conductivity; SAR = sodium

adsorption ratio.
Soil columns were used to evaluate energy sorghum performance
and changes to soil salinity parameters under greenhouse conditions
during the study period. Soil columns were constructed from 0‐ to
15‐cm‐depth and 15‐ to 30‐cm‐depth soils collected from an aban-
doned degraded saline cotton field in El Paso, TX, and the agricultural
research area of the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination
Research Facility in Alamogordo, NM. Prior to sample collection, the
bulk densities of the degraded saline lands at two depths were deter-
mined (Grossman & Reinsch, 2002). Processed soil samples were
repacked into polyvinyl chloride columns that had a diameter of 28
and 38 cm depth to simulate field bulk density at their respective
depths. At the bottom of each column, a threaded steel tube with ball
valve was attached to collect drainage water, if any. The dominant map
unit at the El Paso, TX, cotton field was Harkey silty clay loam (coarse‐
silty, mixed (calcareous) thermic Typic Torrifluvents), and the soil at Ala-
mogordo, NM, was an Alamogordo variant (fine‐loamy, mixed, thermic
2.2 | Energy sorghum growth and biomass quality
At the center of each column, two seeds of the energy sorghum ES‐
5200 cultivar by Ceres Inc. (Boston, MA, USA) were sown 1 cm deep
in late April of each year (2012, 2014, and 2015), and after 6 weeks,
one plant was removed by cutting at the soil surface. This was equal
to about 16 plants per square meter, within the range recommended
by the seed manufacturer. The same column was used to test a partic-
ular water–soil–amendment treatment replication among 3 years of
the study period so that cumulative changes in soil properties could
be evaluated. All columns were fertilized at the rate equivalent to
48:48:48 kg acre−1 of N:P2O5:K2O. Because WW contained apprecia-
ble amounts of NO3─N and PO4─P, the amount of fertilizer applied to
the WW‐irrigated soil columns were adjusted to keep the nutrient
application rates similar. During 2015, aphid infestation was noticed
in some plants, so plants were sprayed with Whirlwind™ pesticide
(44.9% chlorpyrifos) at the rate of 8 ml L−1. Plants were harvested after
180 days, and aboveground dry biomass production was recorded

TABLE 3 Selected physical and chemical properties of soil before the onset of the study (mean ± standard deviation)
TX 0–15 cm TX 15–30 cm NM 0–15 cm NM 15–30 cm

pH (sat. paste) 8.07 ± 0.22 8.40 ± 0.12 7.86 ± 0.25 7.99 ± 0.11
−1
Electrical conductivity ECe (dS m ) 4.86 ± 1.88 9.72 ± 1.24 4.85 ± 0.67 9.36 ± 1.63
Sodium adsorption ratio 8.4 ± 1.1 9.9 ± 0.7 2.6 ± 0.5 5.5 ± 1.3
Cation exchange capacity (cmol(c) kg−1) 18.47 ± 0.62 18.81 ± 0.73 22.49 ± 8.88 22.54 ± 8.45
Texture Loam Clay loam Silty clay Clay
−3
Bulk density (Mg m ) 1.37 ± 0.07 1.21 ± 0.17 1.27 ± 0.11 1.30 ± 0.05
Sodium (sat. paste, mg L−1) 602 ± 159 1,097 ± 167 286 ± 68 776 ± 206
Calcium (sat. paste, mg L−1) 317 ± 111 728 ± 124 676 ± 109 1,003 ± 87
Magnesium (sat. paste, mg L−1) 43 ± 21 123 ± 25 132 ± 36 291 ± 49
−1
Chloride (sat. paste, mg L ) 696 ± 378 2,031 ± 251 160 ± 50 1,213 ± 373
Sulfate (sat. paste, mg L−1) 211 ± 117 851 ± 138 1,340 ± 68 1,203 ± 76

Note. EC, electrical conductivity; NM = New Mexico; TX = Texas.

GANJEGUNTE ET AL.
after drying at 70 °C. Biomass bioenergy quality parameters were ana-
lyzed using near‐infrared reflectance spectroscopy in the Dairy One
Laboratory (Ithaca, NY, USA). Recent advances in near‐infrared reflec-
tance spectroscopy have made it possible to analytically determine
acceptable quality parameters without the need for wet chemistry ver-
ifications (Guimaraces, Simeone, Parrella, & Sena, 2014; Schmer et al.,
2012). Biomass and bioenergy quality parameters included water‐
soluble carbohydrates, hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin, and ash content.
2.3 | Irrigation water quality, initial characterization
of soils, soil salinity, and sodicity
Irrigation water samples were collected before the study and at regular
intervals (every 2 months) during the study period. Selected chemical
properties of the irrigation water samples such as pH, electrical conduc-
tivity (EC), calcium, magnesium, potassium sodium, boron, chlorides,
nitrates, phosphates, and sulfates were analyzed as per American Public
Health Association (2005). Chemical properties of water samples are
presented in Table 2. Biological oxygen demand and fecal coliforms
are regularly monitored by the WW treatment plant to meet the Texas
Commission on Environment Quality standards and those data are
available to the public on request (El Paso Water Utilities, 2015).
Before the onset of the study (baseline) and at the end of each
year (after the harvest), soil samples were collected from two depths
(0–15 and 15–30 cm) in each of the columns using a 5‐cm‐diameter
soil auger. Holes created by sampling were plugged with extra soil from
the same depths collected from study sites. These sampled areas were
flagged and not sampled subsequently. Texture of the processed sam-
ples was analyzed using hydrometer method (Gee & Or, 2002).
FIGURE 1 Energy sorghum biomass production (dry weight basis) in columns constructed from soil samples from two locations (New Mexico and
Texas) irrigated with two water qualities (freshwater and treated wastewater) amended with (GS) or without (NA) gypsum + sulfur. Error bars
indicate standard deviation
537
Processed soil samples were analyzed for saturated paste extract EC
(ECe; Rhoades, 1996), pH (Thomas, 1996), major cations (Na, Ca, and
Mg), and anions (Cl and SO4) using ion chromatography (Tabatabai &
Frankenberger, 1996). SAR of the soil samples were estimated from
Ca, Mg, and Na concentrations using the empirical equation.
2.4 | Data analyses
Repeated measures analysis of variance and least significant difference
test were used to determine the significance of treatment effects and
their interactions at p ≤ .05 using SPSS software (version 24).
Mauchly's test of sphericity was used to test the assumption that the
variances of the differences between all combinations of related
groups must be equal. When assumptions of sphericity were violated,
corrections were used depending upon eta (ƞ).
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Sorghum biomass production and bioenergy
quality
Energy sorghum annual biomass production (oven dry (OD) weight)
ranged from 1,824 g/m2 in the first year (2012) FW‐amended NM soil
(FW‐NM‐[G + S] treatment) to 3,319 g/m2 in 2014 with FW
nonamended TX soil (FW‐TX‐NA treatment; Figure 1). Growth year,
water quality, soil type, and soil amendment additions were significant.
None of the interactions among growth year, water, soil, amendments,
and depths were significant. In all treatments, second year (2014) pro-
duction was the highest, and biomass production in 2014‐FW‐TX‐NA
538
was significantly greater than all other treatment combinations except
2014‐FW‐NM‐NA, 2014‐WW‐TX‐NA, 2014‐FW‐NM‐(G + S), and
2015‐FW‐TX‐NA (Figure 1). Yield increases in 2014 compared to
2012 ranged from 7% in WW‐NM‐NA treatment to 56% in FW‐NM‐
(G + S) treatment. Biomass production in 2015 was also higher than
2012 for the respective treatments. Biomass production under WW
irrigation across growth years and soil amendments averaged at about
2,308 g/m2, which was significantly lower than 2,606 g/m2 biomass
production across treatments under FW irrigation. It was interesting
to note that energy sorghum did not respond to addition of gypsum
2
and sulfur. On average (G + S), columns produced about 2,353 g/m
compared to 2,561 g/m2 in nonamended soils. We theorize that the
biomass did not respond to gypsum and sulfur addition because soils
of the study region are naturally enriched with gypsum (Ganjegunte
et al., 2017; USDA‐NRCS, 2012).
The biomass production values reported in our study are in
agreement with the values reported for energy sorghum produced
in other parts of TX and elsewhere (Chen et al., 2017; Habyarimana,
Laureti, De Ninno, & Lorenzoni, 2004; Meki, Snider, Kiniry, Raper, &
−1
Rocateli, 2013; Wight et al., 2012). Biomass yields of 30 Mg ha or
−2
3,000 g m (OD weight) was reported near College Station, TX
(Rooney, Blumenthal, Bean, & Mullet, 2007). Wight et al. (2012)
reported that ES‐5200 cultivar of bioenergy sorghum produced
20.2 to 23.1 Mg ha−1 y−1 at College Station, TX, and 22.5 to
−1 −1
26.1 Mg ha y at Weslaco, TX. Although these values represent
FIGURE 2 (a) Water‐soluble carbohydrates, (b) hemicellulose + cellulose, (c) lignin, and (d) ash contents of biomass samples grown on soils from
two locations (New Mexico [NM] and Texas [TX]), irrigated with two water qualities (freshwater [FW] and treated wastewater [WW]), and
amended with gypsum and sulfur (G + S) or not amended (NA). Error bars indicate standard deviation
GANJEGUNTE ET AL.
biomass production under nonsaline conditions, energy sorghum
biomass production levels on saline soils in our study was comparable.
Thus, the results of our study indicated a high tolerance of bioenergy
sorghum to elevated salinity. This has significant implications for
alleviating degraded saline lands and improving their productivity.
Similar to our study, Almodares, Hadi, and Ahmadpour (2008)
reported high tolerance of some select cultivars of sweet sorghum when
the soil salinity increased. They reported sorghum stem biomass (fresh
weight basis) production at the rate of 67 Mg ha−1 even under a high
salinity of 12 dS m−1. Our study results indicated that during the 3 years
of production, total biomass production (includes stem weight) on fresh
weight basis ranged from 56 to 74 Mg ha−1 (converted from per square
meter to 10,000 m2). In contrast to the above results, Chen et al. (2017)
reported a total biomass (OD weight) production of 10 Mg ha−1 on mar-
ginal lands that received a total of 348 mm of rainfall in northeast China.
Biomass production tends to be greater under irrigated conditions due
to more favorable moisture conditions. Habyarimana et al. (2004)
reported that sorghum yielded 33 to 51 Mg ha−1 under irrigation com-
pared to 20 to 29 Mg ha−1 under rainfed conditions in Italy. Thus, our
results indicated that marginal quality water can be successfully used
to irrigate energy sorghum on abandoned degraded saline lands.
Sorghum biomass quality results are presented in Figure 2a–d. Our
results indicated that water‐soluble carbohydrate concentrations in
sorghum biomass ranged from 7% to 22%, and significant growth year
differences were observed for a given water–soil type–amendment
GANJEGUNTE ET AL.
combination (Figure 2a). Water‐soluble carbohydrate concentrations
decreased with time over 3 years as soil salinity increased. Similar to
our results, Almodares et al. (2008) reported decreased soluble carbo-
hydrate (sucrose, fructose, and glucose) concentrations in energy sor-
ghum with increasing salinity. Exact reasons for carbohydrate
decrease under elevated salinity are unknown; however, some
researchers have attributed this trend to a range of mechanisms
involving tissue rehydration to breakdown of soluble carbohydrates
(Lacerda, Cambraia, Oliva, & Ruiz, 2005). Addition of gypsum and sul-
fur to soils did not show significant effects on soluble carbohydrate
concentrations in our study.
Results indicated that the combined concentration of hemicellu-
lose and cellulose (holocellulose) found in plant cell walls ranged from
26% in the first year in 2012‐WW‐NM‐(G + S) treatment to 54% in
2015‐WW‐NM‐NA treatment (Figure 2b). No significant differences
between (G + S)‐amended and nonamended treatments were
observed. In general, holocellulose content increased with salinity
and time over 3 years. Our results for holocellulose concentrations
agree well with the range of 43% to 54% reported for different types
of sorghum by Rao et al. (2016). Our energy sorghum samples
contained 4.6% to 6.6% lignin and 6.2% to 12.6% ash content
(Figure 2c,d). Although the reported range for acid insoluble lignin (of
4.63% to 16.82%) in the literature compares well with our numbers,
the ash content in our study was much higher than the range reported
in the literature (1.83% to 3.2%), which could be due to the elevated
salinity of the soils that were used to grow the energy sorghum (Rao
et al., 2016). The above results indicate that biomass quality of energy
sorghum grown on degraded saline land with marginal water was
FIGURE 3 Changes in pH values of soil columns constructed using samples collected from two locations (New Mexico [NM] and Texas [TX]),
irrigated with two water qualities (freshwater [FW] and treated wastewater [WW]), amended with gypsum and sulfur (G + S) or not amended
(NA) at two depths (0–15 and 15–30 cm). Error bars indicate standard deviation
539
similar to that produced on nonsaline land. This has important implica-
tions for bioenergy production on the degraded lands.
Details of soil organic carbon and nutrient dynamics under FW and
WW irrigation are discussed in a related article that is under review. In
summary, soil organic matter decreased from initial concentrations of
15.96 and 14.56 g kg−1 to 11.59 and 8.15 g kg−1 in the upper 30 cm
of WW‐irrigated NM and TX soils by the end of that study, respectively.
Organic matter content in the upper 30 cm also declined to 11.53 and
8.72 g kg−1 in FW‐irrigated NM and TX soils at the end of this study.
The decline in organic matter could be due to high biomass harvest that
resulted in low residue return to the soil and high temperatures of the
region simulated in the greenhouse, which might have facilitated higher
decomposition rates of soil organic matter (Meki et al., 2013). However,
WW irrigation had additional benefits. Using the NO3 and PO4─P con-
centrations in WW (Table 2), it is estimated that at the rate 69 cm of irri-
gation application, WW can supply about 96 and 60 kg of N and P per
hectare. This will help in reducing fertilizer costs for producing crops
on degraded lands with marginal quality WW.
3.2 | Soil pH, salinity, and sodicity
Soil pH decreased over time from 8.4 in 0–15 cm depth of TX baseline
samples to 6.7 in the 15–30 cm depth of the 2015 WW‐irrigated,
nonamended NM soil (WW‐NM‐NA; Figure 3). Effects of growth year,
water qualities, and soil amendments on soil pH were significant.
Interactive effects of Growth Year × Amendments, Water Qual-
ity × Amendments, Growth Year × Soil Depth, Growth Year × Soil
Type × Amendments, and Growth Year × Water × Soil Type × Soil
540 GANJEGUNTE ET AL.

FIGURE 4 Changes in saturated paste extract electrical conductivity (ECe) values of soil columns constructed using samples collected from two
locations (New Mexico [NM] and Texas [TX]), irrigated with two water qualities (freshwater [FW] and treated wastewater [WW]), amended
with gypsum and sulfur (G + S) or not amended (NA) at two depths (0–15 and 15–30 cm). Error bars indicate standard deviation

FIGURE 5 Changes in saturated paste extract sodium adsorption ratio values of soil columns constructed using samples collected from two
locations (New Mexico [NM] and Texas [TX]), irrigated with two water qualities (freshwater [FW] and treated wastewater [WW]), amended
with gypsum and sulfur (G + S) or not amended (NA) at two depths (0–15 and 15–30 cm). Error bars indicate standard deviation
GANJEGUNTE ET AL.
Depth on soil pH were all significant. In general, soil pH decreased with
time in both TX and NM soils probably because additional water solu-
bilized native gypsum and other divalent salts. Dominance of divalent
cations in the diffuse double layer can lower soil solution pH because
of the formation of neutral ionic pairs (Essington, 2003).
Solubilization and redistribution of salts that were already present
in the degraded saline lands used in our study and salts added by WW
could have resulted in the higher salinity of the root zone (Figure 4).
Baseline ECe values indicated that in both NM and TX degraded lands,
soil salinity exceeded the threshold value. Irrigation with FW (that had
a total dissolved solids [TDS] concentration of 832 mg L−1) or WW
(TDS of 1,600 mg L−1) resulted in the downward movement of dis-
solved salts. Expectedly, irrigation with WW that had higher TDS
resulted in higher root‐zone salinity than the FW. Highest ECe values
were observed at 15–30 cm depth of 2014‐WW‐NM‐(G + S) treat-
ment combination. Results indicated that in most treatment combina-
tions, subsurface soil salinity levels were greater than the surface soil
salinity. This may be due to leaching of salts as a result of improved
permeability because of gypsum and also the greater clay content of
subsurface soils, which has a tendency to accumulate salts.
Soils with higher salinity also had higher sodicity after 2 years of irri-
gation (Figure 5). This indicated that irrigated soils were both saline and
sodic. Synchronized increases in salinity and sodicity of the soils indi-
cated that evaporation is the main mechanism of salt accumulation in
these soils. When evaporation is the main mechanism, Ca in soil solution
precipitates leaving greater Na concentration in soil solution (Corwin
et al., 2003). However, no impairment in soil permeability was observed
due to increased SAR in any of our columns. This could be because of
greater electrolyte concentration in soil solution as indicated by higher
ECe values. If the electrolyte concentration is at or greater than the
threshold value needed to overcome the dispersive effects of sodicity,
then the permeability of soil is not impaired (Chaudhari & Somawanshi,
2004; Hillel, 2004; Suarez, Wood, & Lesch, 2008; Sumner, Rengasamy,
& Naidu, 1998). Treated WW had higher electrolyte concentration due
to greater salinity, and FW increased the electrolyte concentration of
soil solution by solubilizing the salts that were already present in
degraded saline lands. Therefore, this positive interaction between ECe
and SAR did not result in poor soil permeability even at high SAR values.
This has important implications for the sustainability of marginal quality
water irrigation on degraded saline–sodic lands.
4 | C O N CL U S I O N S
Results indicated that biomass production on degraded saline lands under
WW irrigation was similar to that under FW irrigation. Our results also
indicated that quality of energy sorghum produced on degraded saline
soils with WW irrigation was similar to that produced under FW irrigation
on nonsaline soils. Soil pH decreased over time, whereas both salinity and
sodicity increased under WW as well as FW irrigation. Although soil
sodicity exceeded the threshold value of 13, no impairment of soil perme-
ability was observed due to elevated electrolyte concentration of soil
solution. Overall, the results of this greenhouse study indicate a great
abandoned potential of degraded lands for bioenergy production with
marginal quality water irrigation. Further field studies are required to
541
confirm production potential of bioenergy feedstocks on degraded
saline lands and to highlight treated WW as a potential irrigation source.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was supported by the South Central Sun Grant Initiative
Seed Grant Program (award # AB‐5‐61770.2 TAMRF5 Ganjegunte).
Part of Dr. Ganjegunte's salary was provided by the USDA‐Hatch pro-
ject (Accession No. 1001806 and Project number: TEX0‐1‐9162).
Local cotton grower Mr. Jon Witty and Mr. Randall Shaw, Facility Man-
ager at BGNDRF, Alamogordo, NM, provided access to study fields.
Technical assistance by Carlos Castro, Monique Ontiveros, Priscilla
Reyes, and John Clark is greatly appreciated.
ORCID
Girisha Ganjegunte http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1997-6049
RE FE RE NC ES
Almodares, A., Hadi, M. R., & Ahmadpour, H. (2008). Sorghum stem yield
and soluble carbohydrates under different salinity levels. African Journal
of Biotechnology, 7, 4051–4055.
American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005). Standard methods for
examination of water and wastewater (21st ed.). Washington DC: Amer-
ican Public Health Association.
Assouline, S., Narkis, K., Gherabli, R., & Sposito, G. (2016). Combined
effects of sodicity and organic matter on soil properties under long‐
term irrigation with treated wastewater. Vadoze Zone Journal, 15, 2–
10. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2015.12.0158
Chaudhari, S. K., & Somawanshi, R. B. (2004). Unsaturated flow of different
quality irrigation waters through clay, clay loam, and silt loam soils and
its dependence on soil and solution parameters. Agricultural Water Man-
agement, 64, 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378‐3774(03)00145‐8
Chen, F., Ameen, A., Tang, C., Du, F., Yang, X., & Xie, G. (2017). Effects of
nitrogen fertilization on soil nitrogen for energy sorghum on marginal
land in China. Agronomy Journal, 109, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2016.06.0340
Corcoran, E., Nellemann, C., Baker, E., Bos, R., Osborn, D., & Savelli, H.
(2010). Sick water? The central role of wastewater management in sus-
tainable development. A rapid response assessment. United Nations
Environment Programme, UN‐HABITAT, GRID‐Arendal, Norway.
Corwin, D. L., Hopmans, J. W., Mori, Y., Van Groenigen, J. W., Van Kessel,
C., Lesch, S. M., & Oster, J. D. (2003). Assessment and field‐scale map-
ping of soil quality properties of a saline–sodic soil. Geoderma, 114,
231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016‐7061(03)00043‐0
Cox, C., Jin, L., Ganjegunte, G., Borrok, D., Lougheed, V., & Ma, L. (2018).
Soil quality changes due to flood‐irrigation in agricultural fields along
the Rio Grande in western Texas. Applied Geochemistry, 90, 87–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.12.019
El Paso Water Utilities. (2015). Reports on treated wastewater quantities and
qualities. Available online at http://www.epwu.org/wastewater/waste-
water_stats.html
Essington, M. E. (2003). Soil and water chemistry: An integrative approach.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
FAO and ITPS (2015). Status of the World's Soil Resources (SWSR)—Main
report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Inter-
governmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy. 650 p. ISBN: 978‐92‐
5‐109004‐6. Available online at http://www.fao.org/3/a‐i5199e.pdf
Ganjegunte, G., & Clark, J. (2017). Improved irrigation scheduling for fresh-
water conservation in the desert southwest U.S. Irrigation Science, 35,
315–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271‐017‐0546‐8
Ganjegunte, G. K., Ulery, A., Niu, G., & Wu, Y. (2017). Effects of treated
municipal wastewater irrigation on soil properties, switchgrass
542
production and quality under arid climate. Industrial Crops and Products,
99, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.01.038
Ganjegunte, G. K., Ulery, A., Niu, G., & Wu, Y. (2018). Organic carbon, nutri-
ent, and salt dynamics in saline soil and switchgrass irrigated with
treated municipal wastewater. Land Degradation & Development, 29,
80–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2841
Gee, G. W., & Or, D. (2002). Particle size analysis. In Methods of soil analysis.
Part 4. Physical methods, Dane JH, Topp GC (eds.). SSSA Book Ser. 5,
Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI; 255‐293.
Grossman, R. B., & Reinsch, T. G. (2002). Bulk density and linear extensibil-
ity. In Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical methods, Dane JH and
Topp GC (eds.). SSSA Book Ser. 5, Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI; 201‐228.
Guimaraces, C. C., Simeone, M. L. F., Parrella, R. A. C., & Sena, M. M. (2014).
Use of NIRS to predict composition and bioethanol yield from cell wall
structural components of sweet sorghum biomass. Microchemical Jour-
nal, 117, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2014.06.029
Habyarimana, E., Laureti, D., De Ninno, M., & Lorenzoni, C. (2004). Perfor-
mances of biomass sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] under
different water regimes in Mediterranean region. Industrial Crops and
Products, 20, 23–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2003.12.019
Hillel, D. (2004). Introduction to environmental soil physics. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Lacerda, C. F., Cambraia, J., Oliva, M. A., & Ruiz, H. A. (2005). Changes in
growth and in solute concentrations in sorghum leaves and roots during
salt stress recovery. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 54, 69–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.06.004
Maucieri, C., Cavallaro, V., Caruso, C., Borin, M., Milani, M., & Barbera, A. C.
(2016). Sorghum biomass production for energy purpose using treated
urban wastewater and different fertilization in a Mediterranean envi-
ronment. Agriculture, 6, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture6040067
Meki, M. N., Snider, J. L., Kiniry, J. R., Raper, R. L., & Rocateli, A. C. (2013).
Energy sorghum biomass harvest thresholds and tillage effects on soil
organic carbon and bulk density. Industrial Crops and Products, 43,
172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.07.033
Miller, G. W. (2006). Integrated concepts in water reuse: Managing global
water needs. Desalination, 187, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2005.04.068
Miyamoto, S., Yuan, F., & Anand, S. (2007). Reconnaissance survey of salt
sources and loading into the Pecos River. Texas Water Resources Insti-
tute, Technical Report TR‐291.
NRC (2012). Water reuse: Potential for expanding the nation's water supply
through reuse of municipal wastewater. Washington DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13303
Packer, D. J., & Rooney, W. L. (2014). High‐parent heterosis for biomass
yield in photoperiod‐sensitive sorghum hybrids. Field Crops Research,
167, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.07.015
Papanikolaou, C., & Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, M. (2012). The effect of an
intelligent surface drip irrigation method on sorghum biomass, energy
and water savings. Irrigation Science, (4), 807–814. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00271‐012‐0344‐2
Promkhambut, A., Younger, A., Polthanee, A., & Akkasaeng, C. (2010). Mor-
phological and physiological responses of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.
Moench) to water logging. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 9, 183–193
ISSN 1682‐3974.
Rao, P. S., Vinutha, K. S., Kumar, G. S. A., Chiranjeevi, T., Uma, A., Lal, P., …
Jose, S. (2016). Sorghum: A multipurpose bioenergy crop. In R. Perumal,
P. Rajendrakumar, F. Maulana, T. Tesso, C. R. little, I. Ciampitti, & V.
Prasad (Eds.), Sorghum: State of the art and future perspectives (pp. 1–
26). Madison, WI: Agron. Monogr. 58. ASA and CSSA. https://doi.org/
10.2134/agronmonogr58.2014.0053
Rhoades, J. D. (1996). Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved
solids. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Part 3. Chemical methods. SSSA Book Ser. 5,
417–436. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
GANJEGUNTE ET AL.
Rooney, W. L., Blumenthal, J., Bean, B., & Mullet, J. E. (2007). Designing
sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining, 1, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.15
Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, M., & Dimakas, D. (2013). Effects of biosolids
application on sweet sorghum biomass, water use efficiency and etha-
nol production. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22, 914–921.
Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, M., Giouvanis, V., Soulti, A., Papadakis, E., &
Koliou, A. (2012). Water‐saving by irrigating two varieties of sorghum
(energy plant) with treated municipal wastewater: A 3‐years study in
Central Greece. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 21, 205–207.
Sakellariou‐Makrantonaki, M., Papalexis, D., Nakos, N., & Kalavrouziotis, I.
K. (2007). Effect of modern irrigation methods on growth and energy
production of sweet sorghum (var. Keller) on a dry year in Central
Greece. Agricultural Water Management, 90, 181–189. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.004
Schmer, M. R., Vogel, K. P., Mitchell, R. B., Dien, B. S., Jung, H. G., & Casler,
M. D. (2012). Temporal and spatial variations in switchgrass biomass
composition and theoretical ethanol yield. Agronomy Journal, 104, 54–
64. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0195
Suarez, D. L., Wood, J. D., & Lesch, S. M. (2008). Infiltration into cropped
soils: Effect of rain and sodium adsorption ratio‐impacted irrigation
water. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37, S169–S179. https://doi.
org/10.2134/jeq2007.0468
Sumner, M. E., Rengasamy, P., & Naidu, R. (1998). Sodic soils: A reappraisal.
In M. E. Sumner, & R. Naidu (Eds.), Sodic soils: Distribution, properties,
management, and environmental consequences (pp. 3–17). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Tabatabai, M. A., & Frankenberger, W. T. (1996). Liquid chromatography. In
Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods, Sparks DL (ed.). SSSA
Book Ser. 5, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI; 1201–1230.
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). (2001). Surveys of irrigation in
Texas (Report 347). Available online at http://www.twdb.texas.gov/
publications/reports/ numbered_reports /doc/ R347/R347.pdf
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). (2017). Texas State Water Plan
—Water for Texas. Available online at http://www.twdb.texas.gov/
waterplanning/swp/2017/doc/SWP17‐Water‐for‐Texas.pdf
Thomas, G. W. (1996). Soil pH and soil acidity. In Methods of soil analysis.
Part 3. Chemical methods, Sparks DL (ed.). SSSA Book Ser. 5, Soil Sci-
ence Society of America, Madison, WI; 475–490.
Umali, D. L. (1993). Irrigation‐induced salinity: A growing problem for develop-
ment and the environment, World Bank technical paper no.215.
Washington D.C: World Bank Publications ISSN 0253‐7494.
USDA‐NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conser-
vation Services). (2012). Web based soil survey reports for study sites
in El Paso County, TX and Otero County, NM. Available at http://
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Wight, J. P., Hons, F. M., Storlien, J. O., Provin, T. L., Shahandeh, H., &
Wiedenfeld, R. P. (2012). Management effects on bioenergy sorghum
growth, yield and nutrient uptake. Biomass and Bioenergy, 46, 593–
604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.036
Xu, J., Wu, L., Chang, A. C., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Impact of long‐term
reclaimed wastewater irrigation on agricultural soils: A preliminary
assessment. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 183, 780–786. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.094
How to cite this article: Ganjegunte G, Ulery A, Niu G, Wu Y.
Treated urban wastewater irrigation effects on bioenergy sor-
ghum biomass, quality, and soil salinity in an arid environment.
Land Degrad Dev. 2018;29:534–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ldr.2883