Sustainable Desert Agriculture Systems with Saline Groundwater Irrigation: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between versions V2 by Lindsay Dong and V1 by Sangmin Shin.

Agricultural land expansion is a solution to address global food security challenges in the context of climate change. However, the sustainability of expansion in arid countries is difficult because of scarce surface water resources, groundwater salinity, and the health of salt-affected soil. Developing expansion and sustainability plans for agriculture requires systems thinking, considering the complex feedback interactions between saline groundwater, salt-affected soil, plant growth, freshwater mixing with saline groundwater, irrigation systems, and the application of soil amendments to alleviate the salinity impacts.

  • desert agriculture
  • salinity
  • soil amendment
  • systems thinking
  • saline groundwater
  • food security

1. Effects of Irrigation with Saline Groundwater

1.1. Impacts of Salinity on Crop Growth

The rise in food demand, coupled with the increase in water requirements to boost global crop production, amplifies stress on the limited available freshwater resources [34][1]. In arid and semi-arid regions, where the surface water is usually insufficient to meet the irrigation water demand, groundwater is used to make up for such deficits [35][2].

Salinity causes negative effects on both the soil and plant health. However, the extent of the effects on different plants can vary in degree. Also, there can be different levels of effects depending on the developmental stages of plant growth. During the early vegetative stages, crops are more sensitive to salinity and pronounced symptoms such as leaf stunting and tip leaf discoloration [39,40][3][4]. One of the major effects of salinity on the normal growth of plants comes from cellular shrinkage due to dehydration or physiological drought generated from osmotic stress caused by excessive salt ions [39][3]. Grains such as wheat and rice are especially susceptible to salinity in soil and water stress during the maturing stage—salinity could induce early flowering and deformed reproductive organs in wheat [41][5]. Both sodium and chloride ions adversely affect plant growth in the long term by limiting photosynthesis which results in the inhibition of the growth and development of agricultural crops [39][3].
Plants’ roots are the main organ responsible for water and nutrient uptake, and the first interface to sense and respond to salinity stress. Therefore, investigating the root response of crops under salinity stress is important for developing climate-resilient crops [42][6]. Compared with shoot traits such as flowering time and yield, root traits are not a common plant breeding objective due to the inaccessibility of the root system and the lack of the requisite genetic data associating root phenology and molecular biology with adaptive responses to salinity [43][7]. However, the development of high throughput phenotyping platforms has recently permitted the association of root phenes with water acquisition from drying soil in cereals including rice [44,45][8][9] and maize [46][10].
Salt stress under osmotic or ion toxicity results in stunted root growth [47][11]; the degree of deterioration is associated with several factors—most importantly, species, salinity level, and soil type [48][12]. At the seedling stage, the inhibition of cotton root growth could be related to the elevated concentration of Na+ at the expense of K+—an effect that could be partially mitigated by the addition of Ca++ [49][13]. Salinity, in most cases, damages the root system much less than the shoot, which results in a higher root/shoot ratio compared to control conditions [50][14]. Nevertheless, this phenomenon might not be a universal response within plants due to the variation in the range of salinity stress tolerance as seen in Capsicum annuum and Chloris gayana, where roots were damaged by salinity more than shoots [51][15]. Generally, it is thought that roots, unlike shoots, could be more sensitive to sodium ion toxicity rather than osmotic factors, particularly in the seedling stage of cereals such as maize and rice [52,53][16][17].
Root system architecture (RSA) is an important determining factor in a plant’s capacity to access water and nutrients and, therefore, in crop productivity. Structural traits of the roots (e.g., total root depth, root angle, or lateral roots’ number/branching density) showed a high degree of plasticity in saline soil from the early vegetative stage up to maturity and crop harvest. The shape of the RSA of mature plants is eventually determined by early root responses to gravity in saline soil [54][18]. Halo tropism or the disturbance of root gravitropism under salinity has been reported in many plants, such as Arabidopsis, sorghum, and tomato [55][19]. Interestingly, the primary roots of plant seedlings could escape or circumvent saline-affected soil by redirecting roots to access and extend into less salt-content soil located in a direction away from the main root vector angle [56][20]. Over the early stages of a crop plant’s life cycle, high salinity inhibits primary root growth together with a number of lateral roots due to the reduction in the formation of meristematic tissue, called the lateral root primordium (LRP) [57][21]. On the other hand, Ref. [58][22] reported that lateral root growth increased as a result of increasing the salt concentration of irrigation water to 100 mM NaCl. Interestingly, the elevated increase in Na+ uptake by the increased surface area of the emerged lateral roots showed no negative effects. The potential negative effects were apparently mitigated by a significant reduction in hydraulic water conductivity.

2.2. Impacts of Salinity on Soil Health

Physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of soil are all included in soil health. As a result, any impact on any or all of the soil properties will seriously harm the health of the soil. Furthermore, water shortage is highly pronounced in arid and semi-arid countries and has become a worldwide problem of increasing seriousness. Thus, low-quality water such as saline groundwater is commonly used to dominate water shortage [59][23]. Therewith, saline groundwater naturally has solutes of variable concentrations, and its application can be noticeably affected by soil and plant properties. Due to salt accumulation in the root area, irrigation with saline water generally causes increasing soil salinity and greater salinity threats to plant growth [60][24]. Furthermore, climate changes increase the intensity of the salinity problem. In reality, global warming leads to increased temperature and precipitation fluctuations, with consequent increases in evapotranspiration and the reduction of salt leaching [61][25]. Consequently, the presence of salt in the soil area increases. Groundwater salinization causes problems such as soil compaction [62][26], a reduction in the fertility of the soil [63][27], and, ultimately, a reduction in crop yield [64][28]. For example, the compaction of clay soil particles is affected by the valence of the adsorbed cation and the salt concentration. In general, the larger the valence of the adsorbed cation, the closer the cation is held to the clay particle [65][29]. For irrigation, water quality suitability needs to be determined. As pointed out earlier, freshwater—especially fresh groundwater—is rapidly diminishing [70][30], and the remaining water is becoming saline [71][31]. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the use of saline water for irrigation in the face of diminishing freshwater resources. Consequently, opportunities and challenges should be highlighted and should be focused on addressing soil salinity. Opportunities to alleviate salinity problems include adding improvements, cultivating salinity-tolerant varieties, irrigating in a timely manner, mixing fresh and saline water, and improving drainage and soil maintenance.

2. Soil Amendment to Increase Crop Production in Salt-Affected Soils

In semi-arid regions, such as Egypt, groundwater irrigation is a common alternative for desert agriculture, especially when surface water availability is limited [72][32]. However, the presence of excessive salinity in groundwater and soils can significantly reduce agricultural crop yields by triggering serious negative effects on soil properties and plant traits. This is a critical challenge to agricultural producers and policy-makers for achieving sustainable desert/biosaline agriculture and food security [73][33]. The effectiveness of the technical options available to minimize the salinity effects is unclear, however, their implementation is necessary for the planning of desert agricultural systems using saline groundwater.

With the use of saline irrigation water, various approaches to improve crop production against salinity stress have been implemented. These include (1) the planting of salt-tolerant crops, (2) the use of more efficient irrigation methods (e.g., drip irrigation system), (3) salinity leaching, and (4) treatment and amendment of saline soil [74,75][34][35]. In arid and semi-arid regions, the salinity leaching method with (artificial) drainage is typically used to manage soil salinity [75][35]. By ensuring an effective salt “balance” between soil drainage water and the plant root zone, agricultural crop yields can be maintained at adequate production levels. In this approach, the irrigation and/or drainage specialist determines an appropriate moisture leaching fraction that results in an acceptable crop yield at a reasonable cost [76,77][36][37]. Thus, this option produces the effects of not only removing the salinity from the root zone physically, but also recharging the groundwater and managing the water table level [75][35]. However, in locations where only saline irrigation water is available and freshwater availability is limited, the addition of specific soil amendments may be the only cost-effective alternative for sustaining agricultural crop production levels [78][38].

Soil amendments have been widely employed to improve poor soil quality—including the negative effects of soil salinity—for various crop types [79][39]. Soil amendments can be classified into two types: (1) organic amendments, including solid waste compost, fly ash, and biochar; and (2) inorganic amendments, such as gypsum, langbeinite, and zeolite [79,80,81,82][39][40][41][42]. One of the common soil amendments is the application of biosolids, i.e., the residual organic solids generated from the physical and biological treatment of municipal wastewater [83][43]. Land-applied biosolids improve both the aeration and drainage capacities of saline soils through porosity enhancement [84][44]. Moreover, the organic fraction of biosolids increases the saline soil’s available water holding and cation exchange capacities [85][45]. However, biosolids land application for agricultural production is not legal in Egypt, because the biosolids contain organic pollutants that pose significant risks to public and environmental health [86][46]. In other countries, this practice has strict regulatory limits on human pathogens, heavy metals, and emerging contaminants such as microplastics [87,88,89,90][47][48][49][50]

Numerous studies have reported enhanced soil quality and crop productivity following biochar land application through quantitative investigations for different types of soils [101,102][51][52], feedstocks [103[53][54][55],104,105], and crops [101,106,107,108][51][56][57][58]. Previous studies, including [108[58][59][60],109,110], have also investigated the agricultural effects of biochar on the soils in Egypt. For example, Ref. [111][61] investigated the crop productivity effects of biochar application to sandy soils in Egypt under deficit irrigation water conditions. They suggested an optimal biochar rate that produced about 25% reduction in the irrigation requirement. Ref. [112][62] examined the effects of biochar—derived from different feedstocks (rice straw and soybean)—on the fertility of reclaimed sandy soil in Egypt and suggested a biochar rate that yielded the largest growth and productivity of wheat in the sandy soil. 

Unlike biosolids, the acute and long-term effects of biochar land application on public health, economics, and the environment have not been extensively studied. A few studies have provided insight into some of the apparent tradeoffs that exist between biochar’s beneficial use and public health. For example, while biochar produced from maize cobs has been found to be effective in improving soil fertility in developing countries, the air pollutants associated with pyrolytic emissions—namely, PM10 (particulate matter of fewer than 10 microns) and carbon monoxide (CO) —have had serious deleterious effects on human health in those communities [123][63]. Unfortunately, technologically advanced pyrolytic kilns with air emission controls are financially unavailable for many of these agricultural producers [123][63]. A full understanding of the tradeoffs between social, economic, and environmental impacts and the agricultural benefits associated with land application of biochar is required if this approach to mitigating soil salinity is to become standard agricultural practice. To quantify and predict such tradeoffs, it is necessary to establish a science-based mechanistic and systemic understanding of how biochar processing (raw materials and pyrolytic conditions) affects the final biochar characteristics, and of how those characteristics, in turn, impact soil properties and crop yields.

3. Challenges for Sustainable Desert Agriculture Systems

3.1. Systems Thinking to Understand Feedback Processes in Desert Agricultural Systems

Figure 21 shows a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) showing an example of the feedback processes that can be considered for desert agricultural systems in Egypt. The CLD is commonly used to qualitatively understand the dynamic feedback interactions that are produced by critical system components and their causal relationships [131,141][64][65]. In the CLD, the positive label on a causal link implies that an increase/decrease in the state of a component causes an increase/decrease in the state of a connected component. The negative label indicates that an increase/decrease in a component causes a decrease/increase in a connected component. Thus, these positive and negative causal links create feedback loops, which determine the system behaviors such as reinforcing (‘+’) or balancing (‘−‘). Further details of the CLD can be found in [141][65]. The specific description for the feedback interactions in Figure 2 is as follows:
Figure 21. An example of a CLD for feedback interactions between the irrigation water, irrigation infrastructure, soil, and crop productivity sectors.
The interactive feedback processes in desert agricultural systems can act as resources reinforcing or constraints balancing the systems’ behaviors (e.g., irrigation water availability and crop productivity). The dynamics and complex interactions of the feedback processes can create the unexpected, uncertain performance of the agricultural systems—which is called the “emergent property (phenomenon)” in complex systems [131,163][64][66]. An example of the emergent property would be the level of soil fertility for plant growth and productivity, which is determined by the physical, chemical, and biological interactions between the plant (e.g., crop types and nutrients), animal (e.g., soil organisms and animal health), human (e.g., cultivating intensity and food production), and climate dimensions [164][67]. Failure to consider the structural and feedback interactions can bring misunderstanding of the counterintuitive consequences (emergent property) from the implementation of a desert agricultural system with blending diversions of the Nile River with saline groundwater and/or the application of soil amendments for improving agricultural crop production. Thus, the decision-making process on a sustainable desert agricultural system needs to follow an integrated and holistic view, considering the nonlinear and dynamic feedback interactions across its subsystems and associated factors [137,141,165,166,167][65][68][69][70][71].

3.2. Need to Address Dynamics in Drivers

Feedback processes and their interactions are directly affected by dynamic external drivers such as climate and socioeconomic changes (e.g., market prices, population growth, and domestic water demand), energy availability (e.g., energy crisis), and policies (e.g., environmental regulations and subsidies), which can induce system behaviors that are unexpected in the decision-making process [168,169,170,171][72][73][74][75].

Rising sea levels due to climate change can also increase the intrusion of salt water into the shallow aquifer and, in turn, lead to an increase in groundwater salinity—e.g., the increase in salinity in the Nile Delta region due to climate change is anticipated to be about 27% [130][76]. Thus, with the increased use of groundwater irrigation, salt water intrusion exacerbates soil salinity and eventually, will limit the use of saline groundwater, which affects the feedback process related to irrigation water availability and crop productivity.

The projections of climate change in Egypt indicate an increase in temperature of 3.1 °C to 4.7 °C [24,172][77][78]. This temperature rise can produce a significant increase in evapotranspiration, which can increase by 4% as a result of a 1 °C temperature rise in Egypt [130][76]. The increased evapotranspiration increases irrigation demands and elevates the salinity of the soil and groundwater, which will limit the use of groundwater for irrigation [150][79]. In addition, climate change has direct impacts on the growth, productivity, and quality of most crops [130,171][75][76]

Egypt is experiencing a rapid increase in population growth. The population has doubled since the mid-1980s and the urbanized areas have increased substantially. The increasing food demand as a result of population growth, urbanization, and an increase in living standards has highlighted the need to expand agricultural production. This expansion requires more irrigation water, which will exacerbate the competition among the end-users of the Nile River. 

3.3. The Need for a System Dynamics Approach in Decision-Making

The agricultural systems built on reclaimed desert lands, as water-agriculture-socioeconomic systems under dynamic and various drivers, are inherently complex. As described earlier, these systems can have delayed, unintended, and unexpected consequences in system behaviors arising from feedback processes with management interventions [176][80]. Thus, the planning of saline groundwater use for desert agricultural systems needs to be addressed with systems thinking and long-term strategies to identify the emergent properties among the water, agriculture (e.g., soil, biophysics, and infrastructure), environment (e.g., climate), and socioeconomic sectors and to minimize the unintended system behaviors [176,177,178][80][81][82].
Systems thinking considers multifaceted and interacting components in a holistic view for planning a system [177][81]. In this regard, the system dynamics (SD) approach is uniquely suited to understanding and analyzing the complex, nonlinear, and dynamic behaviors of agricultural systems governed by complicated interacting feedback processes with a time delay [137,176][68][80]. The SD approach emphasizes the relationships and interactions among the system’s components rather than considering the individual components in isolation [137,141][65][68]. The integrative characteristics of the SD approach allow for the coupling of the physical, socioeconomic, and environmental components that comprise agricultural systems. Thus, the SD approach underlines the engagement of multifaceted stakeholders—who are involved in the planning of agricultural systems impacted by saline groundwater irrigation and the addition of soil amendments to support agricultural production in desert lands—and their inclusive decision-making with transparency and multiple criteria [142][83].

3.4. Sustainable Desert Agricultural Systems with Saline Groundwater Irrigation

3.4.1. Diversification and Decentralization in Irrigation Systems

Reclaiming desert land for agriculture with saline groundwater irrigation will pose sustainability challenges for maintaining the required agricultural productivity given limited water and financial resources and uncertain, dynamic drivers, as described above. A simple measure for sustainable irrigation and agriculture is the modification of cropping patterns, as a demand-side adaptation option, that can result in reduced irrigation water demand [171,185][75][84]. However, modification of cropping patterns can be misinterpreted due to the need to increase the security of the targeted agricultural crops [171][75]. In this context, an increase in water resources and system efficiency is a more effective measure for sustainable agricultural production than tracking the level of cropping pattern modification [171][75]. However, the drivers that affect irrigation have high statistical uncertainty [186][85]. The uncertainty in climate change further exacerbates the complexity of predicting the climate impacts combined with socioeconomic changes—e.g., the variation in the flow of the Nile River from −60% to 45% for multiple general circulation models (GCMs) [187][86], or in the range from a 30% increase to a 77% decrease [188][87]. The uncertainty in local drivers can lead to debates and conflicts among stakeholders over their impacts and importance during the decision-making processes [189][88]. Thus, addressing the uncertainties of the various drivers and their impacts is the primary challenge in decision-making for sustainable irrigation systems in reclaimed desert agriculture.

3.4.2. Urban Water Demand Management

Another strategy for sustainable irrigation systems in desert agriculture is urban water demand management with optimal allocation of water resources [151,211][89][90]. This option can mitigate the diversion demands on the Nile River and the competition among the end-users by reducing urban water consumption [212][91]. However, the water requirements of various sectors are different and are changing over time. The current water allocations of the Nile River and groundwater may be inadequate for future water demands. In this regard, diversification and decentralization options (e.g., distributed alternative water sources) in urban water systems, along with the stepwise tradeoffs between urban and agricultural water resources, will also help improve the availability of irrigation water resources in the long term, considering the dynamics and uncertainties of climate and socioeconomic changes.

3.4.3. Sufficient Energy Availability

An increase in energy consumption in Egypt due to rapid population and economic growth can limit the operation and efficiency of the irrigation infrastructure (e.g., pumping energy for groundwater extraction) under limited energy availability. In addition, the use of diversified water resources for sustainable irrigation water or desalination technologies (e.g., reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, nanofiltration, distillation, capacitive deionization, or solar humidification and dehumidification) to dilute the salinity in groundwater may also lead to an increase in the energy consumption (requirements) of the desert agricultural systems [213,214,215,216,217][92][93][94][95][96].

3.4.4. Smart Irrigation System

Improving irrigation systems’ efficiency will also contribute to sustainable water irrigation and desert land agriculture. In this regard, a smart irrigation system with sensors and controllers can be considered [226][97]. Many agriculture systems irrigate water at a specific or regular time and duration via timers of manual controllers. This type of irrigation system has contributed to the waste or over-irrigation of water without considering the irrigation requirements based on climate and soil conditions—e.g., about 30% of irrigated water is wasted [227][98]. Smart irrigation systems with sensors (e.g., soil moisture sensors), communication, analytics, and controllers (e.g., remote timers) can collect data on soil conditions and irrigation facilities in real time and predict real-time irrigation requirements along with climate conditions such as temperature, humidity, antecedent rainfall, and winds [228,229,230][99][100][101].

3.4.5. Active Participation of Stakeholders

Many agricultural stakeholders, including farmers and system managers, have learned how to decide and adjust their plans and adaptation activities based on their practical experience. In this context, sharing their experiences and portfolios of adaptation strategies among multiple stakeholders can substantially and effectively improve the stakeholders’ knowledge and adaptation capacities [231][102]. Thus, there is a need to incorporate strategies for learning, including the creation of educational environments that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders faced with desert land agricultural system planning under uncertainty.


  1. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Water Use and Stress. Our World Data 2017. Available online: (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  2. Madramootoo, C.A. Sustainable Groundwater Use in Agriculture. Irrig. Drain. 2012, 61, 26–33.
  3. Munns, R. Salinity, Growth and Phytohormones. In Salinity: Environment-Plants-Molecules; Läuchli, A., Lüttge, U., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 271–290. ISBN 978-0-306-48155-0.
  4. Mudgal, V.; Madaan, N.; Mudgal, A. Biochemical Mechanisms of Salt Tolerance in Plants: A Review. Int. J. Bot. 2010, 6, 136–143.
  5. EL Sabagh, A.; Islam, M.S.; Skalicky, M.; Ali Raza, M.; Singh, K.; Anwar Hossain, M.; Hossain, A.; Mahboob, W.; Iqbal, M.A.; Ratnasekera, D.; et al. Salinity Stress in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the Changing Climate: Adaptation and Management Strategies. Front. Agron. 2021, 3, 661932.
  6. Hazman, M.; Brown, K.M. Progressive Drought Alters Architectural and Anatomical Traits of Rice Roots. Rice 2018, 11, 62.
  7. To, H.T.M.; Nguyen, H.T.; Dang, N.T.M.; Nguyen, N.H.; Bui, T.X.; Lavarenne, J.; Phung, N.T.P.; Gantet, P.; Lebrun, M.; Bellafiore, S.; et al. Unraveling the Genetic Elements Involved in Shoot and Root Growth Regulation by Jasmonate in Rice Using a Genome-Wide Association Study. Rice 2019, 12, 69.
  8. Henry, A.; Cal, A.J.; Batoto, T.C.; Torres, R.O.; Serraj, R. Root Attributes Affecting Water Uptake of Rice (Oryza sativa) under Drought. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 4751–4763.
  9. Kadam, N.N.; Tamilselvan, A.; Lawas, L.M.F.; Quinones, C.; Bahuguna, R.N.; Thomson, M.J.; Dingkuhn, M.; Muthurajan, R.; Struik, P.C.; Yin, X.; et al. Genetic Control of Plasticity in Root Morphology and Anatomy of Rice in Response to Water Deficit. Plant Physiol. 2017, 174, 2302–2315.
  10. Lynch, J.P.; Chimungu, J.G.; Brown, K.M. Root Anatomical Phenes Associated with Water Acquisition from Drying Soil: Targets for Crop Improvement. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6155–6166.
  11. Bañón, S.; Miralles, J.; Ochoa, J.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J. The Effect of Salinity and High Boron on Growth, Photosynthetic Activity and Mineral Contents of Two Ornamental Shrubs. Hortic. Sci. 2012, 39, 188–194.
  12. Sánchez-Blanco, M.J.; Álvarez, S.; Ortuño, M.F.; Ruiz-Sánchez, M.C. Root System Response to Drought and Salinity: Root Distribution and Water Transport. In Root Engineering: Basic and Applied Concepts; Morte, A., Varma, A., Eds.; Soil Biology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 325–352. ISBN 978-3-642-54276-3.
  13. Läuchli, A.; Grattan, S.R. Plant Growth And Development Under Salinity Stress. In Advances in Molecular Breeding toward Drought and Salt Tolerant Crops; Jenks, M.A., Hasegawa, P.M., Jain, S.M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 1–32. ISBN 978-1-4020-5578-2.
  14. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681.
  15. Ceccoli, R.D.; Blanco, N.E.; Medina, M.; Carrillo, N. Stress Response of Transgenic Tobacco Plants Expressing a Cyanobacterial Ferredoxin in Chloroplasts. Plant Mol. Biol. 2011, 76, 535–544.
  16. Cramer, G.R.; Epstein, E.; Lauchli, A. Kinetics of Root Elongation of Maize in Response to Short-Term Exposure to NaCl and Elevated Calcium Concentration1. J. Exp. Bot. 1988, 39, 1513–1522.
  17. Hazman, M.; Hause, B.; Eiche, E.; Riemann, M.; Nick, P. Different Forms of Osmotic Stress Evoke Qualitatively Different Responses in Rice. J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 202, 45–56.
  18. Koevoets, I.T.; Venema, J.H.; Elzenga, J. Theo.M.; Testerink, C. Roots Withstanding Their Environment: Exploiting Root System Architecture Responses to Abiotic Stress to Improve Crop Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1335.
  19. Galvan-Ampudia, C.S.; Julkowska, M.M.; Darwish, E.; Gandullo, J.; Korver, R.A.; Brunoud, G.; Haring, M.A.; Munnik, T.; Vernoux, T.; Testerink, C. Halotropism Is a Response of Plant Roots to Avoid a Saline Environment. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, 2044–2050.
  20. Sun, J.; Jiang, H.; Xu, Y.; Li, H.; Wu, X.; Xie, Q.; Li, C. The CCCH-Type Zinc Finger Proteins AtSZF1 and AtSZF2 Regulate Salt Stress Responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007, 48, 1148–1158.
  21. Julkowska, M.M.; Hoefsloot, H.C.J.; Mol, S.; Feron, R.; de Boer, G.-J.; Haring, M.A.; Testerink, C. Capturing Arabidopsis Root Architecture Dynamics with Root-Fit Reveals Diversity in Responses to Salinity. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 1387–1402.
  22. Krishnamurthy, P.; Ranathunge, K.; Nayak, S.; Schreiber, L.; Mathew, M.K. Root Apoplastic Barriers Block Na+ Transport to Shoots in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 4215–4228.
  23. Wiesman, Z. Chapter 3—Key Characteristics of the Desert Environment. In Desert Olive Oil Cultivation; Wiesman, Z., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 31–53. ISBN 978-0-12-374257-5.
  24. Greene, R.; Timms, W.; Rengasamy, P.; Arshad, M.; Cresswell, R. Soil and Aquifer Salinization: Toward an Integrated Approach for Salinity Management of Groundwater. In Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges; Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R.J., Rinaudo, J.-D., Ross, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 377–412. ISBN 978-3-319-23576-9.
  25. Cui, G.; Lu, Y.; Zheng, C.; Liu, Z.; Sai, J. Relationship between Soil Salinization and Groundwater Hydration in Yaoba Oasis, Northwest China. Water 2019, 11, 175.
  26. Soil Salinization as a Global Major Challenge | ITPS Soil Letter #3. Global Soil Partnership, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available online: (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  27. Zhang, W.; Wang, C.; Xue, R.; Wang, L. Effects of Salinity on the Soil Microbial Community and Soil Fertility. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 1360–1368.
  28. Zörb, C.; Geilfus, C.-M.; Dietz, K.-J. Salinity and Crop Yield. Plant Biol. 2019, 21, 31–38.
  29. McFarland, M.J. Biosolids Engineering; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-07-047178-8.
  30. Groundwater Decline and Depletion. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  31. Stenhouse, J.; Kijne, J.W. Prospects for Productive Use of Saline Water in West Asia and North Africa; Research Report 11 of the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2006; ISBN 978-92-9090-6308.
  32. Sharaky, A.M.; El Abd, E.S.A.; Shanab, E.F. Groundwater Assessment for Agricultural Irrigation in Toshka Area, Western Desert, Egypt. In Conventional Water Resources and Agriculture in Egypt; Negm, A.M., Ed.; The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 347–387. ISBN 978-3-319-95065-5.
  33. El-Sayed, L. Determining an Optimum Cropping Pattern for Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, The American University in Cairo, New Cairo, Egypt, 2012.
  34. Tejada, M.; Garcia, C.; Gonzalez, J.L.; Hernandez, M.T. Use of Organic Amendment as a Strategy for Saline Soil Remediation: Influence on the Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1413–1421.
  35. Cuevas, J.; Daliakopoulos, I.N.; del Moral, F.; Hueso, J.J.; Tsanis, I.K. A Review of Soil-Improving Cropping Systems for Soil Salinization. Agronomy 2019, 9, 295.
  36. Kamara, A.Y.; Ewansiha, S.U.; Ajeigbe, H.A.; Omoigui, L.O. Response of Old and New Cowpea Varieties to Insecticide Spray Regimes in the Sudan Savanna of Nigeria. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2013, 46, 52–63.
  37. Leaching Requirement—An Overview|ScienceDirect Topics. Available online: (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  38. Choukr-Allah, R.; Rao, N.K.; Hirich, A.; Shahid, M.; Alshankiti, A.; Toderich, K.; Gill, S.; Butt, K.U.R. Quinoa for Marginal Environments: Toward Future Food and Nutritional Security in MENA and Central Asia Regions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 346.
  39. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Bolan, N.S. Soil Salinity under Climate Change: Challenges for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111736.
  40. Liu, Y.-L.; Yao, S.-H.; Han, X.-Z.; Zhang, B.; Banwart, S.A. Chapter Six—Soil Mineralogy Changes with Different Agricultural Practices during 8-Year Soil Development from the Parent Material of a Mollisol. Adv. Agron. 2017, 142, 143–179.
  41. Shaaban, M.; Abid, M.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.I. Amelioration of Salt Affected Soils in Rice Paddy System by Application of Organic and Inorganic Amendments. Plant Soil Environ. 2013, 59, 227–233.
  42. Bayoumy, M.A.; Khalifa, T.H.H.; Aboelsoud, H.M. Impact of Some Organic and Inorganic Amendments on Some Soil Properties and Wheat Production under Saline-Sodic Soil. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2019, 10, 307–313.
  43. Allen, H.L.; Brown, S.L.; Chaney, R.L.; Daniels, W.L.; Henry, C.L.; Neuman, D.R.; Rubin, E.; Ryan, J.; Toffey, W. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse; EPA 542-R-07-013; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. Available online: (accessed on 3 August 2022).
  44. Graber, E.R.; Fine, P.; Levy, G.J. Soil Stabilization in Semiarid and Arid Land Agriculture. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 190–205.
  45. Yoo, M.S.; James, B.R. Zinc Extractability as a Function of PH in Organic Waste-Amended Soils. Soil Sci. 2002, 167, 246–259.
  46. Barakat, A.O.; Khairy, M.A.; Mahmoud, M.R. Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Sewage Sludge from Egypt. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2017, 52, 750–756.
  47. Ternes, T.A.; Joss, A.; Siegrist, H. Scrutinizing Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 392A–399A.
  48. Roig, N.; Sierra, J.; Nadal, M.; Martí, E.; Navalón-Madrigal, P.; Schuhmacher, M.; Domingo, J.L. Relationship between Pollutant Content and Ecotoxicity of Sewage Sludges from Spanish Wastewater Treatment Plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425, 99–109.
  49. Gómez-Canela, C.; Barth, J.A.C.; Lacorte, S. Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorinated Compounds in Sewage Sludge from Spain and Germany. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2012, 19, 4109–4119.
  50. Corradini, F.; Meza, P.; Eguiluz, R.; Casado, F.; Huerta-Lwanga, E.; Geissen, V. Evidence of Microplastic Accumulation in Agricultural Soils from Sewage Sludge Disposal. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 411–420.
  51. Backer, R.G.M.; Schwinghamer, T.D.; Whalen, J.K.; Seguin, P.; Smith, D.L. Crop Yield and SOC Responses to Biochar Application Were Dependent on Soil Texture and Crop Type in Southern Quebec, Canada. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2016, 179, 399–408.
  52. Ajayi, A.E.; Horn, R. Biochar-Induced Changes in Soil Resilience: Effects of Soil Texture and Biochar Dosage. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 236–247.
  53. Alburquerque, J.A.; Calero, J.M.; Barrón, V.; Torrent, J.; del Campillo, M.C.; Gallardo, A.; Villar, R. Effects of Biochars Produced from Different Feedstocks on Soil Properties and Sunflower Growth. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2014, 177, 16–25.
  54. Lim, T.J.; Spokas, K.A.; Feyereisen, G.; Novak, J.M. Predicting the Impact of Biochar Additions on Soil Hydraulic Properties. Chemosphere 2016, 142, 136–144.
  55. Pariyar, P.; Kumari, K.; Jain, M.K.; Jadhao, P.S. Evaluation of Change in Biochar Properties Derived from Different Feedstock and Pyrolysis Temperature for Environmental and Agricultural Application. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136433.
  56. Jeffery, S.; Verheijen, F.G.A.; van der Velde, M.; Bastos, A.C. A Quantitative Review of the Effects of Biochar Application to Soils on Crop Productivity Using Meta-Analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 175–187.
  57. Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Sánchez-García, M.; Vandecasteele, B.; D’Hose, T.; López, G.; Martínez-Gaitán, C.; Kuikman, P.J.; Sinicco, T.; Mondini, C. Agronomic Evaluation of Biochar, Compost and Biochar-Blended Compost across Different Cropping Systems: Perspective from the European Project FERTIPLUS. Agronomy 2019, 9, 225.
  58. Baiamonte, G.; Minacapilli, M.; Crescimanno, G. Effects of Biochar on Irrigation Management and Water Use Efficiency for Three Different Crops in a Desert Sandy Soil. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7678.
  59. Youssef, M.E.-S.; Al-Easily, I.a.S.; Nawar, D.A.S. Impact of Biochar Addition on Productivity and Tubers Quality of Some Potato Cultivars Under Sandy Soil Conditions. Egypt. J. Hortic. 2017, 44, 199–217.
  60. Hagab, R.H.; Eissa, D.; Abou-Shady, A.; Abdelmottaleb, O. Effect of Biochar Addition on Soil Properties and Carrot Productivity Grown in Polluted Soils. Egypt. J. Desert Res. 2016, 66, 327–350.
  61. Ramadan, A.; Essay, E.; Saleh, M. Sustainable Management of Deficit Irrigation in Sandy Soils by Producing Biochar and Adding It as a Soil Amendment. Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2018, 6, 1359–1375.
  62. Ali, M.M.E. Effect of Plant Residues Derived Biochar on Fertility of a New Reclaimed Sandy Soil and Growth of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 58, 93–103.
  63. Marks, E.A.N.; Mattana, S.; Alcañiz, J.M.; Domene, X. Biochars Provoke Diverse Soil Mesofauna Reproductive Responses in Laboratory Bioassays. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2014, 60, 104–111.
  64. Shin, S.; Aziz, D.; Jabeen, U.; Bano, R.; Burian, S.J. A Trade-off Balance among Urban Water Infrastructure Improvements and Financial Management to Achieve Water Sustainability. Urban Water J. 2022, 19, 195–207.
  65. Sterman, J. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; MacGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0-07-231135-8.
  66. Marrin, D.L. Emergent Properties of Water Resources and Associated Watershed Systems. Proceedings 2019, 48, 18.
  67. Nicolodi, M.; Gianello, C. Understanding Soil as an Open System and Fertility as an Emergent Property of the Soil System. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2014, 4.
  68. Kotir, J.H.; Smith, C.; Brown, G.; Marshall, N.; Johnstone, R. A System Dynamics Simulation Model for Sustainable Water Resources Management and Agricultural Development in the Volta River Basin, Ghana. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 444–457.
  69. Medici, G.; Langman, J.B. Pathways and Estimate of Aquifer Recharge in a Flood Basalt Terrain; A Review from the South Fork Palouse River Basin (Columbia River Plateau, USA). Sustainability 2022, 14, 11349.
  70. Bastan, M.; Ramazani Khorshid-Doust, R.; Delshad Sisi, S.; Ahmadvand, A. Sustainable Development of Agriculture: A System Dynamics Model. Kybernetes 2017, 47, 142–162.
  71. Whyte, J.; Mijic, A.; Myers, R.J.; Angeloudis, P.; Cardin, M.-A.; Stettler, M.E.J.; Ochieng, W. A Research Agenda on Systems Approaches to Infrastructure. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2020, 37, 214–233.
  72. Adelman, D.E.; Barton, J.H. Environmental Regulation for Agriculture: Towards a Framework to Promote Sustainable Intensive Agriculture. Stanf. Environ. Law J. 2002, 21, 3.
  73. Ren, C.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, X.; Wang, Y.; Sun, D. An Improved Interval Multi-Objective Programming Model for Irrigation Water Allocation by Considering Energy Consumption under Multiple Uncertainties. J. Hydrol. 2021, 602, 126699.
  74. Elliott, J.H.; Turner, T.; Clavisi, O.; Thomas, J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Mavergames, C.; Gruen, R.L. Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap. PLOS Med. 2014, 11, e1001603.
  75. Omar, M.E.D.M.; Moussa, A.M.A.; Hinkelmann, R. Impacts of Climate Change on Water Quantity, Water Salinity, Food Security, and Socioeconomy in Egypt. Water Sci. Eng. 2021, 14, 17–27.
  76. El-Ramady, H.R.; El-Marsafawy, S.M.; Lewis, L.N. Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Changes in Egypt. Sustain. Agric. Rev. 2013, 41–95.
  77. Pemunta, N.V.; Ngo, N.V.; Fani Djomo, C.R.; Mutola, S.; Seember, J.A.; Mbong, G.A.; Forkim, E.A. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Egyptian National Security, and Human and Food Security in the Nile River Basin. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1875598.
  78. World Meteorological Organization. WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2017; World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  79. Saysel, A.K.; Barlas, Y. A Dynamic Model of Salinization on Irrigated Lands. Ecol. Model. 2001, 139, 177–199.
  80. Turner, B.L.; Tidwell, V.; Fernald, A.; Rivera, J.A.; Rodriguez, S.; Guldan, S.; Ochoa, C.; Hurd, B.; Boykin, K.; Cibils, A. Modeling Acequia Irrigation Systems Using System Dynamics: Model Development, Evaluation, and Sensitivity Analyses to Investigate Effects of Socio-Economic and Biophysical Feedbacks. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1019.
  81. Turner, B.L.; Menendez, H.M., III; Gates, R.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Atzori, A.S. System Dynamics Modeling for Agricultural and Natural Resource Management Issues: Review of Some Past Cases and Forecasting Future Roles. Resources 2016, 5, 40.
  82. Li, M.; Xu, Y.; Fu, Q.; Singh, V.P.; Liu, D.; Li, T. Efficient Irrigation Water Allocation and Its Impact on Agricultural Sustainability and Water Scarcity under Uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 2020, 586, 124888.
  83. Pluchinotta, I.; Pagano, A.; Giordano, R.; Tsoukiàs, A. A System Dynamics Model for Supporting Decision-Makers in Irrigation Water Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 815–824.
  84. Alabdulkader, A.M.; Al-Amoud, A.I.; Awad, F.S. Adaptation of the Agricultural Sector to the Effects of Climate Change in Arid Regions: Competitive Advantage Date Palm Cropping Patterns under Water Scarcity Conditions. J. Water Clim. Change 2016, 7, 514–525.
  85. Beyene, T.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Kabat, P. Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change on the Nile River Basin: Implications of the 2007 IPCC Scenarios. Clim. Change 2010, 100, 433–461.
  86. Elshamy, M.E.; Wheater, H.S. Performance Assessment of a GCM Land Surface Scheme Using a Fine-scale Calibrated Hydrological Model: An Evaluation of MOSES for the Nile Basin. Hydrol. Process. Int. J. 2009, 23, 1548–1564.
  87. Conway, D. The Impacts of Climate Variability and Future Climate Change in the Nile Basin on Water Resources in Egypt. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1996, 12, 277–296.
  88. Barnes, J. Uncertainty in the Signal: Modelling Egypt’s Water Futures. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 2016, 22, 46–66.
  89. Flörke, M.; Schneider, C.; McDonald, R.I. Water Competition between Cities and Agriculture Driven by Climate Change and Urban Growth. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 51–58.
  90. Lankford, B.A.; Grasham, C.F. Agri-Vector Water: Boosting Rainfed Agriculture with Urban Water Allocation to Support Urban–Rural Linkages. Water Int. 2021, 46, 432–450.
  91. Haddad, M.; Lindner, K. Sustainable Water Demand Management versus Developing New and Additional Water in the Middle East: A Critical Review. Water Policy 2001, 3, 143–163.
  92. Burn, S.; Hoang, M.; Zarzo, D.; Olewniak, F.; Campos, E.; Bolto, B.; Barron, O. Desalination Techniques—A Review of the Opportunities for Desalination in Agriculture. Desalination 2015, 364, 2–16.
  93. Vieira, A.S.; Beal, C.D.; Ghisi, E.; Stewart, R.A. Energy Intensity of Rainwater Harvesting Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 225–242.
  94. Soto-García, M.; Martin-Gorriz, B.; García-Bastida, P.A.; Alcon, F.; Martínez-Alvarez, V. Energy Consumption for Crop Irrigation in a Semiarid Climate (South-Eastern Spain). Energy 2013, 55, 1084–1093.
  95. Nayar, K.G.; Thiel, G.P.; Winter, A.G.V.; Lienhard, J.H.V. Energy Requirement of Alternative Technologies for Desalinating Groundwater for Irrigation. In Proceedings of the International Desalination Association Word Congress, San Diego, CA, USA, 30 August–4 September 2015.
  96. El-Kady, M.; El-Shibini, F. Desalination in Egypt and the Future Application in Supplementary Irrigation. Desalination 2001, 136, 63–72.
  97. Bwambale, E.; Abagale, F.K.; Anornu, G.K. Smart Irrigation Monitoring and Control Strategies for Improving Water Use Efficiency in Precision Agriculture: A Review. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 260, 107324.
  98. Gloria, A.; Dionisio, C.; Simões, G.; Cardoso, J.; Sebastião, P. Water Management for Sustainable Irrigation Systems Using Internet-of-Things. Sensors 2020, 20, 1402.
  99. Mason, B.; Rufí-Salís, M.; Parada, F.; Gabarrell, X.; Gruden, C. Intelligent Urban Irrigation Systems: Saving Water and Maintaining Crop Yields. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 226, 105812.
  100. Shi, J.; Wu, X.; Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Zuo, Q.; Wu, X.; Zhang, H.; Ben-Gal, A. Numerically Scheduling Plant Water Deficit Index-Based Smart Irrigation to Optimize Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 248, 106774.
  101. Gimpel, H.; Graf-Drasch, V.; Hawlitschek, F.; Neumeier, K. Designing Smart and Sustainable Irrigation: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128048.
  102. Vermeulen, P.; Nguyen, H.-Q.; Nam, N.; Pham, H.; Nguyen Tien, T.; Thanh, T.; Dam, R. Groundwater Modeling for the Mekong Delta Using iMOD. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1–6 December 2013.