Field-scale monitoring of the long-term impact and sustainability of drainage water reuse on the west

side of Californias San Joaquin Valley

Objectives
The objective of this study is (i) to monitor the long-term impact on soil chemical properties and thereby the sustainability of drainage water reuse
on a marginally productive, salinesodic, 32.4 ha field located on the west side of Californias productive San Joaquin Valley and (ii) to assess
spatially what happens to soil when drainage water reuse is terminated. The monitoring and assessment were based on spatial chemical data for
soil collected during 10 years of irrigation with drainage water followed by 2 years of no applied irrigation water (only rainfall). A mixed linear
ANOVA modeling technique was used to determine the significance of change by depth for shift in the field means over time of soil chemical
properties, which corresponds to the F-test for no shift in the mean level over time (t1- t2 = 0), and the significance of change of spatial variation,
which corresponds to the F-test for no dynamic variation.
The evaluation of the long-term sustainability of drainage water reuse on marginally productive soil in Californias WSJV has shown that drainage
water reuse can be suitably managed (i) to improve the soil quality of a salinesodic soil by leaching salinity, Na, and detrimental trace elements
(B and Mo) thereby reclaiming the soil and returning it to productivity, (ii) to transform drainage water from an environmental burden into a water
resource that produces forage to support livestock, and (iii) to reduce dramatically the volume of drainage water disposed in evaporation ponds
thereby freeing up land that must be set aside for evaporation ponds and returning it to production.

Variable definitions and descriptions
Soil core sample sites were selected using geo-referenced ECa survey data as a surrogate for the spatial variation of soil properties known to
influence ECa including soil texture, water content, salinity, organic matter, cation exchange capacity, bulk density, and organic matter. The 40
sites were chosen (i) to represent about 95% of the observed range in the bivariate EMI survey data, (ii) to represent the average of the ECa
readings for the entire field, and (iii) to be spatially distributed across the field minimizing any clustering. The number of sites selected was based
on the following criteria: (i) variability of the field as revealed by the ECa survey, (ii) available resources to conduct soil sample analyses, and (iii)
intended use of the data based on the objective of the study.
At each of the 40 sites, soil-core samples were taken at 2 points (i.e., two sets of soil cores per site) roughly 5 centimeters apart. Soil cores were
taken at 0.3 m increments to a depth of 1.2 m. One set of soil cores was designated for soil chemical property analysis and the other set for soil
physical property analysis. A total of 320 soil samples were taken (160 soil chemical property samples, 160 soil physical property samples). To
observe temporal changes resulting from the application of drainage water, soil core samples were taken at the same 40 selected sample site
locations at 5 different dates over the 12 years of the study: 1923 Aug. 1999, 1517 Apr. 2002, 30 Nov.3 Dec. 2004, 1820 Aug. 2009, and 26
May 2011. All soil cores were kept in refrigerated storage prior to air-drying and sieving (2 mm sieve), which occurred within a few days after
their collection.
The soil cores were analyzed for a range of physical and chemical properties considered important for the assessment of soil quality of an arid
zone soil when the goal was the production of forage. The soil chemical properties included: electrical conductivity of the saturation extract
(ECe); pHe; anions (HCO3 _, Cl_, NO3 _, SO4 2_) and cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) in the saturation extract; trace elements (B, Se, As, Mo)
in the saturation extract; CaCO3; gypsum; cation exchange capacity (CEC); exchangeable Na+, K+,Mg2+ and Ca2+; exchangeable sodium
percentage (ESP); SAR; total C; and total N. The 192 soil samples designated for analysis of soil physical properties were analyzed for saturation
percentage (SP; moisture content of the soil at saturation expressed as a percentage on a gravimetric basis), volumetric water content (qv), bulk
density (rb), and clay content.

Approach choices
A mixed linear ANOVA modeling technique was used to determine the significance of change by depth for shift in the field means over
time of soil chemical properties, which corresponds to the F-test for no shift in the mean level over time (t1 - t2 = 0), and the significance of
change of spatial variation, which corresponds to the F-test for no dynamic variation. This approach is described in Corwin et al. (2006).
Significance was assigned to probability levels p <= 0.05.

Results
Table 2 shows the correlations between ECa measurements taken with EMI in 1999 and soil physical and chemical properties for the 5 soil
sampling times of 1999, 2002, 2004, 2009, and 2011. Correlations that are significant (p # 0.05) indicate those soil properties that were spatially
characterized with the RSSD approach using the 1999 EMI ECa survey; as a result, the field means and spatial distributions of these significantly
correlated properties can be considered reliable. Soil properties that are not significantly correlated with ECa were not spatially characterized with
the RSSD approach, which casts doubt on the accuracy of their field means. For all five sample times, salinity (i.e., ECe), SAR, and B are
significantly correlated with ECa, while Mo, Se, and pHe are significantly correlated in almost every instance except in 2004 for Mo and Se and
in 1999 for pHe; consequently, it can be concluded that the sampling design generated from the ECa survey in 1999 characterized the spatial
distribution of ECe,
SAR, B, Mo, Se, and pHe for each sample time and reliably determined their field means.
Tables 36 provide the basic statistics of the soil properties of interest for 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2011 at the depth increments of 00.3, 0.30.6,
0.60.9, and 0.91.2 m. These statistics show the extent of change in the field means of soil properties over the 10- year period of drainage water
reuse (i.e., 19992009) followed by 2 years when the field was no longer irrigated and the forage crop was only rain fed (i.e., 20092011). The
general trend from 1999 to 2009 was a decrease in the field means at nearly every depth increment for ECe, SAR, B, and Mo (Tables 36 and
Fig. 3). The general downward trend of these chemical properties reflects the effect of leaching the soil profile with the application of drainage
water having a SAR generally below 15, B generally less than 2 mg L_1, Mo generally less than 200 mg L_1, and a volume weighted average
salinity of 4.66 dS m_1. The decrease in these properties is attributable to two effects resulting from the reuse of drainage water of high salinity:
(i) improved infiltration and (ii) the leaching of solutes due to the application of water in higher volumes than consumptive water use by the crop.
From 1999 to 2009 the field mean of Se increased at all depth increments (see Tables 36). However, Se actually decreased from 2004 to 2009,
reflecting the lower Se levels present in the reused drainage water for 20042009, which were consistently <1 mg L_1 (see Table 1). The overall
increase in Se from 1999 2009 was a consequence of higher levels of Se present in the reused drainage water from 19992004, which ranged
from 20 700 mg L_1. pHe showed a slight increase in the mean at all depth increments from 1999 to 2004 followed by a leveling off from 2004
to 2009.
Vertical profiles for ECa and SAR from 1999 to 2009 showed an increase with depth, which is typical of leaching in the presence of a plant (Fig.
3a and b). Boron also increased with depth (see Fig. 3c), but leveled off at the bottom depths, 0.60.9 and 0.91.2 m, which is likely the
consequence of the strong adsorption of B and insufficient drainage water application to leach B beyond 0.9 m. In slight contrast to the vertical
profiles of ECe, SAR and B, Mo was high near the surface (00.3 m), then dropped to its lowest level and increased with depth (see Fig. 3d),
which points to a recycling of the Mo from the root zone to the soil surface by plants. Salinity, as measured by ECe, decreased at all depths from
1999 to 2009 (Fig. 3a), resulting in an 21% decrease in salinity from 1999 to 2009 in the top 1.2 m soil profile on a mass basis. A comparable 19%
decrease occurred for SAR from 1999 to 2009 with the sharpest decrease from 1999 to 2002 (Fig. 3b). Boron decreased 32% from 1999 to 2009
(Fig. 3c) and
Mo decreased by 67% from 1999 to 2009 for the 1.2 m soil profile (Fig. 3d). Adsorption of B and Mo is strongly dependent on pH (Goldberg et
al., 2002, 2005).35,36 The maximum adsorption for B occurs around pH 9 (Goldberg et al., 2005).36 The maximum adsorption for Mo occurs in
the pH range 24 with rapid decrease in adsorption with increasing pH (Goldberg et al., 2002).35 For the pHs of the soil in this study, B was more
strongly adsorbed and was less mobile than Mo (Fig. 3c and d). However, even though B was strongly adsorbed, the adsorption capacity was not
great; consequently, B was steadily leached from the upper depths of the soil profile (top 0.6 m) from 1999 to 2009 (Fig. 3c). Molybdenum was
very mobile. Each successive sampling from 1999 to 2009 showed a decrease with greater leaching of Mo occurring below 0.3 m (Fig. 3d). The
slower removal of Mo from the top 0.3 m suggests bypass or greater retention due to adsorption. The change in field means from 1999 to 2004 for
Cl_ at the top two depth increments (see Tables 3 and 4) suggests that bypass may be occurring as indicated by the greater removal of Cl_ from
the 0.30.6 m depth increment than from the 00.3 depth increment, but this condition did not continue from 2004 to 2009. Furthermore, Na and
salinity did not show any sign of bypass; consequently, bypass in the top 0.3 m was ruled out. Rather, the recycling of Mo by plant roots is a likely
explanation. Since about 2002, an invasion of sweet clover (Melilotus), which contained high concentrations of Mo in tissue samples, may have
recycled Mo. Table 7 shows the significance of changes by depth for shift in the field means over time for ECe, SAR, B, Mo, and pHe. In every
case except for pHe at the 00.3 m depth increment there was a significant difference between the field means of 1999 and 2009, confirming the
impact of drainage water reuse on the saline sodic field. The general temporal trend from 1999 to 2009 for the field means of pHe was a gradual
increase at each depth increment, but pHe actually decreased or remained the same from 2004 to 2009 (see Tables 36). Even though field means
are of value to understand general trends that are occurring for the entire field, they provide no spatial information to determine where areas of
greatest concern may or may not exist within the field. The change in pHe is a good example and the following section discussing spatio-temporal
trends will shed more light on the observed trends in pHe.
The coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution indicating the field-scale variation. On a
relative basis for the soil properties of interest, CVs for qv, pHe, and SP are low (i.e., CV < 30) and CVs for Se and Mo are high (i.e., CV > 70),
while CVs for ECe, Cl_, SAR and B are moderate, regardless of the year the soil sample was taken.

Table 1: Chemical composition of reused drainage water applied to Westlake Farm field site. Water samples were taken each year during
summer from 2000-2006 and 2008-2009
Chemical Property
Sample date of reused drainage water
22 Aug. 2000 24-Aug-01 13 Aug. 02 26-Jul-03 29-Aug-04 27-Jul-05 15 Aug. 06 09-Jun-08 25-Jun-09
Ece (dS m-1) 4.33 16.26 4.65 5.08 1.8 5.01 5.86 4.49 5.88
pHe 7.4 7.9 7.4 7.4 7.7 8.5 8.7 8.4 8.8
Na+ (meq. L-1) 23.7 219.3 28 37.4 11.5 38.1 44.1 34.4 47.9
K+ (meq. L-1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.5 1 0.4 1.1
Ca 2+ (meq L-1) 25.3 21.9 24.3 25.6 6.3 7.3 7.5 7.1 7.7
Mg2+ (meq. L_1) 13.5 13.1 14.7 10.6 1.2 9.3 13.3 10.2 12.4
SO42 (meq. L-1) 54.6 204.3 59.1 65.5 12.1 36.2 43.2 37 42.8
Cl (meq. L-1) 6.4 34.5 6.2 4.9 5.5 10 14.2 6.5 17.7
HCO3 (meq. L-1) 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.7
NO3 (meq. L-1) < 0.1 0.6 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.1
PO43 (meq. L-1) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1
SAR 5.4 52.4 6.3 8.8 5.9 13.2 13.7 5.2 15.1
B (mg L-1) 1.3 15.1 1.6 2 0.4 1.4 1.8 0.7 6.3
Se (g L-1) 60 700 20 30 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1
As (g L-1) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < 1 < 1
Mo (g L-1) 120 400 120 160 80 82 132 134 176


Table 2: Correlation coefficients between electromagnetic induction ECa (both Emh and Emv) in dS m-1 and soil properties over 0 to 1.2 m for
1999, 2002, 2004, 2009 and 2011. N=40

1999 2002 2004 2009 2011

EC
a
, EM
h
EC
a
, EM
v
EC
a
, EM
h
EC
a
, EM
v
EC
a
, EM
h
EC
a
, EM
v
EC
a
, EM
h
EC
a
, EM
v
EC
a
, EM
h
EC
a
, EM
v

v (m3/m3) 0.62 0.64 0.59 0.63 0.55 0.54 0.69 0.7 0.75 0.77
Ece (dS m-1) 0.74 0.78 0.89 0.84 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.89
pHe 0.01 -0.01 0.4 0.43 0.55 0.58 0.51 0.59 0.34 0.4
Sp (%) 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.3 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.3 0.32
Cl(mmole L-1) 0.34 0.43 0.77 0.81 0.8 0.82 0.79 0.83 0.83 0.79
SAR 0.64 0.7 0.84 0.82 0.87 0.88 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.87
B (mg L-1) 0.48 0.42 0.43 0.4 0.68 0.59 0.66 0.7 0.73 0.73
Se (g L-1) 0.56 0.51 MN NM -0.14 -0.15 -0.33 -0.33 -0.32 -0.34
Mo (g L-1) 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.4 -0.13 -0.27 0.47 0.49 0.24 0.33
Significant at 0.01, Significant at 0.05








able 3:Mean and Range statistics for 0.0-0.3 m sample depth for 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2011, N=48 for each sample year
Soil Property
1999 2004 2009 2011
M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske
v (m3/m3) 0.3 0.21 0.48 0.06 20.5 0.88 0.32 0.22 0.39 0.03 9.1 -0.11 0.25 0.22 0.31 0.062 24.8 1.15 19.5 12.4 36 5.47 28 1.18
Ece (dS m-1) 13 5.6 35.7 7.5 57.8 1.81 11.2 4.48 28.5 5.58 50 1.16 10 4.01 26.2 5.24 52.4 1.21 12.9 3.23 35.1 7.4 57 1.3
pHe 7.6 6.9 8.3 0.3 3.3 -0 7.7 6.7 8.9 0.43 0.5 -0.03 7.7 7 8.3 0.24 3.1 -0.4 7.8 6.6 8.2 0.24 3.1 -2.9
Sp (%) 58.8 45.9 79.1 7.8 13.2 0.57 65.9 53.1 82.1 7.53 11.4 0.38 60.1 46.1 74 7 11.8 0.21 58 44.8 69.4 6.54 11 -0.5
Cl(mmole L-1) 21.8 3.29 67.3 15.2 69.6 1.45 21.6 5.13 62.4 13.7 63.8 1.19 18.5 4 58.1 12.9 69.7 1.32 22.4 2.15 93.1 24.7 110 1.57
SAR 28.2 8.3 70.2 16.5 58.7 1.08 22.8 5.5 62.9 14.1 62 1.03 20.6 4.6 60.7 13.2 64 1.16 26.6 8.3 82.6 18.1 68 1.3
B (mg L-1) 17 1.1 42.5 8.2 48.2 1.21 9.12 1.83 28.9 5.92 65 1.37 7.9 1.6 26 5.3 67.1 1.51 9.84 2.32 35.3 7.67 78 1.7
Se (g L-1) 8.8 0 77 12.7 144.8 3..76 57 0 399 89 156.9 2.15 43 0 250 64 148.8 1.82 2824 0 52.1 8600 305 4.64
Mo (g L-1) 862.3 442 3043 533 61.8 2.72 555 0 2484 510 92.7 2.32 414 0 2084 383.9 92.7 2.46 492 153 2092 364 74.1 2.79










Table 4:Mean and Range statistics for 0.3-0.6 m sample depth for 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2011, N=48 for each sample year
Soil Property
1999 2004 2009 2011
M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Ma. SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske
v (m3/m3) 0.4 0.29 0.52 0.05 11.8 0.36 0.34 0.29 0.41 0.03 7.3 0.44 0.35 0.24 0.47 0.06 17.1 0.25 0.29 0.17 0.47 0.066 22.8 1.18
Ece (dS m-1) 20.2 13.5 34.5 5.3 26 1.05 16.5 4.38 35.5 7.73 46.7 0.55 15 3.64 32 7.35 49 0.6 22 5.66 46.6 9.85 44.8 0.39
pHe 7.6 7 8 0.2 2.6 -0.89 7.6 6.7 8.3 0.41 5.4 -0.44 7.7 7.3 8 0.16 2.1 -0.38 7.9 7.4 8.4 0.18 2.3 0.086
Sp (%) 63 45.5 84.1 10.2 16.2 0.01 65.1 44.3 98.9 12 18.4 0.5 64.5 55.4 83 9.01 14 0.08 57.4 40.5 76.5 8.66 15.1 0.19
Cl(mmole L-1) 35.3 12.9 69 14.3 40.6 0.5 31.6 4.92 106 20.1 63.7 1.2 26.2 4.04 95.4 18.2 69.4 1.71 59.6 5.03 166.3 34.6 58.1 0.64
SAR 51.4 30.3 89.5 12.9 25.1 0.87 41.3 5.2 100.2 21.3 51.4 0.41 37.6 4.32 90.2 20.1 53.5 0.53 47.3 8.02 105.4 22.6 47.8 0.28
B (mg L-1) 19 13.6 38.1 5.6 29.7 1.9 14.2 1.39 33.7 7.5 53 0.78 12.1 1.14 30.4 6.55 54.1 1.03 14.7 1.94 48.7 10.2 69.4 1.49
Se (g L-1) 14 0 45 8.5 60.9 0.79 77 0 529 140 181.0 2.06 62 0 410 110 177.4 2.13 1439 0 574 4674 324.8 4.22
Mo (g L-1)
750.
5 180 2488 430.2 57.3 2.63 360 0 1589 343 95.4 1.57 276.8 0 1367 278.9 100.8 2 596.7 62.9 2022 379.6 63.6 1.93












Table 5:Mean and Range statistics for 0.6-0.9 m sample depth for 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2011, N=48 for each sample year
Soil Property
1999 2004 2009 2011
M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske M Min. Max SD CV Ske
v (m3/m3) 0.4 0.23 0.51 0.05 12.4 -0.72 0.36 0.27 0.41 0.03 8.7 -0.84 0.36 0.17 0.47 0.06 16.7 -0.54 0.32 0.12 0.46 0.07 21.9 -0.47
Ece (dS m-1) 22.5 9.7 43.2 6.5 28.7 1.27 21.5 4.65 48.3 10 46 0.49 19.5 3.86 43.5 9.66 49.5 0.62 26.5 6.57 44 8.72 32.9 -0.24
pHe 7.6 7.3 8.1 0.2 2.3 0.32 7.8 7.1 8.4 0.33 4.2 -0.26 7.8 7.4 8.3 0.2 2.6 0.16 8 7.5 8.4 0.25 3.1 -0.2
Sp (%) 59.1 40 89.5 11.1 18.8 1.16 62.2 40.9 95.8 12.8 20.6 0.69 59.9 40.4 93.4 11.7 19.5 1.11 58.3 40.4 95 11.1 19 1.19
Cl(mmole L-1) 47.1 5.48 100.5 21.8 46.3 0.68 46.6 6.19 154 32.3 69.4 1.11 35.3 5.19 101.6 21.9 62 0.89 74.1 10.8 144.2 30.2 40.8 0.09
SAR 59 24 107.6 16.6 28.1 0.76 56.9 6.3 121 26.5 46.5 0.09 51.9 5.25 108.9 24.9 48 0.23 60.2 10.9 100.1 21.2 35.2 -0.35
B (mg L-1) 17.5 9.4 31.3 4.8 27.2 0.87 16.7 1.64 37.2 7.28 43.6 0.39 14.3 1.35 33.5 6.36 44.4 0.68 17.9 2.69 42.5 7.94 44.4 0.71
Se (g L-1) 12.9 0 34 9.2 71.5 0.67 70 0 704 141 203.3 2.67 64 0 550 120 187.5 2.31 483.9 0 6191.3 1361.1 281.3 3.28
Mo (g L-1) 780.5 183 1756 338.9 43.4 1.9 294 0 169 350 119.3 1.74 215.7 0 1453.0 299.3 138.8 2.3 481.7 0 1663.5 330.9 68.7 1.59


Table 6:Mean and Range statistics for 0.9-1.2 m sample depth for 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2011, N=48 for each sample year
Soil Property
1999 2004 2009 2011

Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske

Min Max SD CV Ske M Min Max SD CV Ske
v (m3/m3)

0.54 0.05 11.4 -0.37 0.36 0.27 0.44 0.04 10.3 -0.55 0.39 0.22 0.58 0.07 17.9 -0.19 0.35 0.15 0.62 0.091 26 0.062
Ece (dS m-1) 25.2 8 49.7 7.9 31.5 0.81 22.5 4.33 47.4 9.8 43.5 0.24 20.2 3.59 42.7 9.32 46.1 0.39 27.4 7.41 52.1 8.48 30.9 -0.008
pHe 7.6 7.1 8 0.2 2.7 -0.37 7.9 7 8.4 0.31 3.9 -0.79 7.8 7.3 8.2 0.2 2.6 -0.4 8.1 7.6 8.5 0.22 2.7 0.094
Sp (%) 58.7 38.5 93.3 12.9 22 0.68 64.2 38.4 134.1 17.5 27.2 1.46 61.2 38.2 102 13.4 21.9 0.72 60.6 38 108.7 13.8 22.7 1.27
Cl(mmole L-1) 58.7 3.18 152.7 30.2 51.4 0.8 51.7 6.4 129.7 32 692 0.4 41.1 5.31 116.7 26.9 65.5 0.75 75.7 15.3 162.8 31.2 41.2 0.17
SAR 64.9 16.8 120.2 19.5 30 0.35 60.9 5.4 127.8 26.5 43.6 0.05 55 4.47 115 24.6 44.7 0.23 64.1 12.7 98.9 20.7 32.3 -0.49
B (mg L-1) 17.9 6.5 31.8 6.3 35 0.45 16.5 1.33 34.5 7.321 44.5 0.158 14.4 1.09 31 6.54 45.4 0.39 18.3 2.96 37.8 7.38 40.3 0.15
Se (g L-1) 14.1 0 62 13.9 98.5 M Min 0 677 161 199.8 2.62 62 0 550 140 225.8 2.7 374.9 0 5361.6 1059.7 282.7 3.42
Mo (g L-1) 946.9 330 2856 450.7 47.6 0.43 0.31 0 1159 272 98 0.9 212.2 0 997.0 224.9 106 1.26 412.4 0 1151 271.7 65.9 1.22


Table7: F-test significance levels associated with mixed linear modeling results
Chemical
Property
Sample
Depth
increament
(m)
pr > F
for shift in mean
level (2009 vs.
1999)
pr > F
for shift in mean
level (2011 vs.
2009)
pr > F
for dynamic spatial
variation 2004 vs.
1999)
pr > F
for dynamic spatial
variation 2009 vs.
1999)
ECe
0.0--0.3 0.0032 0.0001 0.0001 0.0296
0.3--0.6 0.0001 0.0001 0.0037 0.1291
0.6--0.9 0.0012 0.0001 0.0024 0.0696
0.9--1.2 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.2344
SAR
0.0--0.3 0.0037 0.0012 0.0001 0.0263
0.3--0.6 0.0001 0.0003 0.0009 0.1076
0.6--0.9 0.0025 0.0009 0.0031 0.073
0.9--1.2 0.0019 0.0005 0.0006 0.2422
B
0.0--0.3 0.0001 0.0024 0.032 0.3675
0.3--0.6 0.0001 0.0032 0.0005 0.0322
0.6--0.9 0.0433 0.0016 0.0006 0.0402
0.9--1.2 0.0509 0.0009 0.0015 0.0947
Mo
0.0--0.3 0.0001 0.0497 0.3472 0.1879
0.3--0.6 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0291
0.6--0.9 0.0001 0.0001 0.0031 0.0456
0.9--1.2 0.0001 0.0192 0.0247 0.0368
pHe
0.0--0.3 0.0822 0.0751 0.5576 0.902
0.3--0.6 0.0488 0.0222 0.004 0.1783
0.6--0.9 0.0027 0.0011 0.0168 0.3877
0.9--1.2 0.0016 0.0001 0.003 0.7593




Fig. a (ECe)


Fig. b (SAR)

Fig. c (B)


0
10
20
30
1999 2002 2004 2009 2011
E
C
e

(
d
S

m
-
1
)
0.0--0.3
0.3--0.6
0.6--0.9
0.9--0.12
0.0-0.12
0
20
40
60
80
1999 2002 2004 2009 2011
S
A
R

0.0--0.3
0.3--0.6
0.6--0.9
0.9--0.12
0.0-0.12
0
5
10
15
20
25
1999 2002 2004 2009 2011
B

(
m
g

L
-
1
)

0.0--0.3
0.3--0.6
0.6--0.9
0.9--0.12
0.0-0.12
Fig. d (Mo)


Discussion and conclusion
From the perspective of impacts on soil chemical properties, there are few detrimental impacts of concern from drainage water reuse on saline
sodic soil. Even so, it is advisable to monitor certain soil chemical properties during drainage water reuse in the WSJV. An initial steady
increase in pHe in the first few years is ostensibly the only area of potential concern since elevated pHe can influence macronutrient (i.e., P) and
micronutrient (i.e., Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Co) availability. However, pHe decreased from 2002 to 2004 and leveled off from 2004 to 2009 even
though the reused drainage water applied for irrigation consistently had pHs above 8.4; consequently, pHe does not appear to be a significant
concern, but is still worthy of monitoring during drainage water reuse. The accumulation of Se at
the north and south ends of the field did not pose any threat, but continued monitoring is advisable. The recycling of Mo to the soil surface by
sweet clover also does not threaten the viability of reusing drainage water, but should be monitored since sufficiently high levels of Mo could
accumulate in the vegetative portion of sweet clove to affect the digestive tract of ruminant livestock. The rapid return of the reclaimed soil to
its original condition once irrigation terminated is not so much a concern as it is a matter needing awareness. Specifically, reclamation efforts
can be quickly reversed in areas such as the WSJV, where a shallow water table serves as a sink for salts and trace elements when the net water
flow is downward due to irrigation but serves as a source of salts and trace elements when the net flow is upward due to the depletion of water
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1999 2002 2004 2009 2011
M
o

(

g

L
-
1
)

0.0--0.3
0.3--0.6
0.6--0.9
0.9--0.12
0.0-0.12
from the root zone by plants, which creates a potential gradient that draws water upward from the shallow water table. The upward flow of
water brings with it dissolved salts and trace elements that had previously been pushed below the root zone when irrigation was occurring.
Demonstration of the sustainability of drainage water reuse in WSJV is of greatest significance with respect to its value to current joint research
efforts by USDA and the US military to improve the competitiveness of biofuels with petroleum fuels by lowering feedstock-associated costs.
The price of biofuel from plant oil is 10% conversion technology-related and 90% feedstock associated. A significant step toward the
competitive commercialization of biofuel for private and military utilization is evidence of the sustainability of drainage water reuse on
salttolerant crops in the WSJV. The US military desires a secure fuel source with prices unaffected by world events. Brassica oil seed crops
have been identified as biofuel feedstocks adapted to western U.S. conditions that are potentially sustainable for producing commercial and
military aviation fuels. Technology already exists for producing hydrotreated renewable jet (HRJ) fuel from agricultural sources of lipids such
as oil seed crops. The west side of Californias San Joaquin Valley (WSJV) is ideal for feedstock production since it contains substantial
marginally productive land and has degraded waters that could be used to produce feedstocks without competing with higher valued crops and
land uses. By growing salt-tolerant oil seed crops, such as canola (Brassica napus L.) on marginally productive salinesodic soils using low-cost
degraded waters that are unsuited to the economical production of conventional crops, the feedstockassociated costs are reduced, helping to
make biofuel more economically competitive. Combining these cost savings with superior performing germplasm and enhanced production
methods can yield biofuels competitive with petroleum fuels. Therefore, a key component of redesigning the oil seed feedstock
supply chains to be commercially competitive is the demonstration of the long-term sustainability of drainage water reuse established by this
study. The extensive spatio-temporal dataset of this study and
demonstrated methodology for monitoring management induced changes using ECa-directed soil sampling are additional significant assets of
this study. There are no other known spatial datasets recording the impact of drainage water reuse over such an extensive time period.
Furthermore, the methodology for mapping and monitoring degraded water reuse impacts provides a means of assessment that assists the
producer in site-specific management to identify where, when, and the amounts of irrigation or soil amendments that are needed to maintain the
sustainability of degraded water reuse as well as providing the information that is needed for crop selection.