[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Determining an Optimal Combination of Meteorological Factors to Reduce the Intensity of Atmospheric Pollution During Prescribed Straw Burning
Previous Article in Journal
Regulatory Effects of S-Abscisic Acid and Soil Conditioner on the Yield and Quality of Hybrid Rice Under Salt Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/agriculture15030278
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Quality of Surface and Groundwater in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico

by
Oscar Raúl Mancilla-Villa
1,
Fabiola Villafaña-Castillo
1,*,
Álvaro Can-Chulim
2,
Rubén Darío Guevara-Gutiérrez
3,
José Luis Olguín-López
3,
Elia Cruz-Crespo
2,
Jonas Alan Luna-Fletes
1 and
Juan Uriel Avelar-Roblero
4
1
Departamento de Producción Agrícola (CUCSUR), Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur (CUCSUR), Universidad de Guadalajara, Av. Independencia Nacional 151, Centro, Autlán de Navarro 48900, Jalisco, Mexico
2
Facultad de Agricultura, Unidad Académica de Agricultura, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Carretera Tepic-Compostela km 9, Xalisco 63780, Nayarit, Mexico
3
Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur, Universidad de Guadalajara, Av. Independencia Nacional 151, Centro, Autlán de Navarro 48900, Jalisco, Mexico
4
División de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Carretera México-Texcoco km. 38.5, Chapingo, Texcoco 56230, Estado de México, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(3), 278; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030278
Submission received: 21 November 2024 / Revised: 9 January 2025 / Accepted: 10 January 2025 / Published: 28 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Determinants and Methods of Quality Management in Agriculture and Food Processing)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Study sites in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the dry season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the rainy season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Electric conductivity and pH during the dry season.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Electric conductivity and pH during the rainy season.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>). Classification diagram of sodium adsorption ratio and electric conductivity for surface and underground water samples obtained in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Residual sodium carbonate during the dry and rainy seasons.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Classification of surface and underground water electrical conductivity and structural stability cationic ratio (CROSS) in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, during the (<b>a</b>) dry and (<b>b</b>) rainy seasons.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Water is a valuable natural resource, indispensable in the productive, economic, and social development of human beings, agriculture, and domestic and industrial uses throughout the world. Two samplings were established to evaluate the quality of surface and underground water for agricultural irrigation in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico. The first was performed during the dry season from November 2021 to April 2022, and the second was performed during the rainy season from July to September 2022 through completely random probabilistic sampling and a longitudinal descriptive study. In total, 25 surface water and 30 groundwater samples were taken. Each sample was evaluated for its pH, electrical conductivity, and ionic concentration (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, CO32−, HCO3−, CI−, SO42−). For data analysis, we determined the ionic concentrations and the salinity and sodicity indexes, including the electrical conductivity, pH, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and cationic ratio of soil structural stability (CROSS). The results indicate that the ionic concentration is mainly due to calcium bicarbonate, probably due to the geology of the region through water–rock interactions, and the pH is between 6.64 and 7.77; with respect to EC, most of the sampled sites are concentrated in medium-salinity waters of 250–750 µS cm−1. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) showed that the waters have high ionic concentrations of calcium and magnesium and low sodium. The CROSS values were lower than the SAR values, showing that the concentration of potassium ions K+ is low in the evaluated waters. With respect to salinity and sodicity, the water quality of the sampled sites, both surface and groundwater, can be considered good for agricultural use. Given that it was sampled in two seasons, the concentration of ions varies in the rainy season, with the dragging of materials causing the ions to concentrate to a greater extent. This type of research benefits farmers in reducing production costs, having knowledge of water quality, and decision making. We recommend that the alkaline pH of the surface or groundwater be conditioned according to the requirements of the crop to be grown and the irrigation method to be used.

1. Introduction

Water is an essential element of the hydrological cycle and a valuable natural resource. It is indispensable for the productive, economic, and social development of human beings, and, in its liquid form, it constitutes one of the main sources of irrigation for agricultural, and domestic, and industrial uses worldwide [1,2]. Notably, 50% of the world’s potable water and 43% of irrigation water comes from underground sources [3].
One of the main problems that Mexican water bodies are facing is pollution. This situation has worsened resource deterioration, which is a cause for concern. In the state of Jalisco, the demand for surface water can be linked to population growth and the development of productive activities [4,5].
Underground water sources are prone to surface water contamination, as a significant aspect of water modification is caused by precipitation effects that fall to the surface and infiltrate through the soil [6]. Spreading excessive quantities of fertilizers and pesticides is a common example of diffuse contamination that can affect the quality of underground water [7]. Water extractions from irrigation have almost doubled despite improved management practices [8]. The amount of water used by agriculture has been calculated to increase by 14% by 2030, a condition that will deplete and deteriorate the world’s aquifers.
The water quality for agriculture is determined by parameters such as the ion content from irrigation, according to the type and salt content, as well as other elements comprising it. The same qualities can disturb and affect its potential use (agricultural irrigation) [9]. The importance of water quality lies in foreseeing its effect on crops and saline or alkaline soils [10,11]. Unfortunately, uncontrolled access to water sources usually leads to pollution, quality impoverishment, and, finally, the depletion of aquifers [12].
Different authors have studied areas where water quality has been affected by activities such as land use change; the discharge of industrial, domestic, livestock, and agricultural wastewater; and the excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides, affecting the seasons of the year when the ion concentrations are relevant due to the leaching of waste, which can significantly impact water resources.
The quality of groundwater was evaluated in terms of salinity and sodicity for agricultural use, and the water presents conditions ranging from good, moderate, to requiring restrictions on its use, so its sustainable use is recommended in terms of the use of water resources to avoid and prevent soil degradation [13].
A study was conducted on surface water by [14] who reported evidence of the quality of irrigation water in the Ayuquila–Tuxcacuesco–Armeria river basin, Jalisco. According to the salinity and sodicity parameters analyzed, they found that this water is not restricted for agricultural use; most of the irrigation water has medium salinity and low sodium content, which indicates that it can be used as long as it has moderate soil washing and in crops moderately tolerant to salts.
In a study carried out by [15], they analyzed the water quality of two basins in the Tuxcacuesco–Armeria river, and two samples were taken, one in the rainy season and the other in the dry season; the results obtained for the EC were an average of 0. 3975 (µS cm−1), concluding that they can be used for irrigation in almost all crops and soil types, that salinization is minimal, and the ionic concentration varied in the two periods sampled in the rainy season; the concentrations were higher because in the rainy season the river has a greater flow and the ions are more dissolved than in the dry season. In terms of SAR, the waters were classified as S1, waters low in sodium with significant concentrations of magnesium and calcium.
There are different causes of water quality degradation, which is why this type of study aims to investigate the possible factors. In a study conducted by [16], they carried out an investigation in surface water in the Ayuquila–Armeria river basin during two seasons, dry and rainy, and the water quality had been affected by the excessive use of pesticides; 66% of the samples evaluated had the presence of at least one pesticide, the rainy season was the season where the highest number of pesticides was registered. The presence of pesticides is attributed to the high agricultural production in the area.
They carried out a study in groundwater in the Autlan Valley, Jalisco, using chromatography to determine the presence of organochlorine pesticides in ten well samples, without finding levels higher than those indicated by NOM-SSA1-1994, concluding that the presence of pesticides does not represent a risk in groundwater [17].
Considering this problem, this study evaluates the quality of surface and groundwater sources in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, for agricultural irrigation. Through the measurement of pH, electrical conductivity, salinity, and sodicity, the RCS, SAR, and CROSS indexes were evaluated, which allows knowing the water quality, recommending its use in agricultural irrigation, and provides farmers with information for making informed decisions. In addition, this research provides new information, hitherto unknown for the current period, to farmers, the state, and national institutions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The Sierra de Amula Region comprises the municipalities of Atengo, Autlan de Navarro, Ayutla, Cuautla, Chiquilistlan, Ejutla, El Grullo, El Limon, Juchitlan, Tecolotlan, Tenamaxtlan, Tonaya, Tuxcacuesco, and Union de Tula, covering 5842.52 km2. Its altitude is from 740 to 2860 m with an average temperature of 20.9 °C and an average annual rainfall of 914 mm [18]. Most of the region has a temperate, sub-humid climate (78.1).
The soil composition comprises Regosol (38.4%), followed by Leptosol (22.5%), Phaeozem (19.7%), Cambisol (15.8%), Luvisol (6.9%), Vertisol (5.6%), and others (4.3%) [19]. The geology of the region is composed of Cenozoic Tertiary material and, in lesser amounts, contains Cenozoic Tertiary, sedimentary, and acid extrusive igneous rock (24.5%). These are igneous rocks with a volcanic origin brought to the surface through fissures or volcanoes [20,21].
The sampled water is mainly used for irrigating crops from sugar cane, vegetable (tomato; jalapeno chili), corn, avocado, mango, sorghum, cucumber, watermelon, citrus, alfalfa, and peanut crop irrigation [22,23]. Figure 1 shows the study sites.

2.2. Water Sampling and Analysis Methods

Sampling was performed over two seasons; the dry season from November 2021 to April 2022, and the rainy season from July to September 2022. In total, 55 sites were selected per season: 25 sites for surface water and 30 sites for underground water. The surface sites included irrigation canals, dams, and rivers, while underground sites included wells and springs. Sampling was carried out randomly with a longitudinal descriptive design.
Samples were georeferenced and stored in polyethylene bottles inside a cooler. The methodologies used are described in Table 1.

2.3. Quality Parameters

Water quality was evaluated for salinity and sodicity, measuring electrical conductivity, pH, and effective and potential salinity. The salinity index can be estimated from the total concentration of dissolved salts in the water, which directly affect plant growth [26,27]. Ion concentration in irrigation water can be expressed in terms of electrical conductivity (EC), which falls into four classes: (C1) low-salinity waters with EC < 250 µS cm−1; (C2) medium-salinity waters with EC between 250 and 750 µS cm−1; (C3) high-salinity waters with EC between 750 and 2250 µS cm−1; and (C4) highly saline waters with EC > 2250 µS cm−1 [28,29]. The pH scale was applied according to [30], where normal values for irrigation water are between 6.5 and 8.4. Values outside of this interval can lead to nutritional imbalances or toxic ions.
The sodicity index is defined as the evaluated sodium concentration in water used in irrigation [31]. The water salinity concentration and the sodium content in relation to the calcium and magnesium contents (sodium adsorption ratio) are the two most influential factors regarding the infiltration rate of water into the soil [32]. The SAR concentration was calculated using the following equation:
S A R = [ N a + ] [ C a 2 + + M g 2 + ] 2
where Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ refer to the concentrations of soluble cations expressed in meq L−1.
The residual sodium carbonate (RSC) indicator is used to evaluate the risks that bicarbonates and carbonates pose to water entering the soil. They predict the amount of residual sodium carbonate that will be left after the precipitation of CaCO3 and MgCO3 [33]. When irrigation water has high concentrations of HCO31− and CO32−, sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) may form [34]. Residual sodium carbonate can be calculated with the following equation:
RSC= (CO32−+ HCO3−) − (Ca2+ + Mg2+)
When considered for irrigation, value of <1.25 meq L−1 indicates good water quality; between 1.25 and 2.5 meq L−1 indicates conditioned water; and >2.5 is not to be used.
Structural stability cationic ratio (CROSS); The reuse of wastewater for irrigation has increased; this water contains high amounts of potassium, so CROSS has been proposed to characterize wastewater samples [35,36]. CROSS not only accounts for Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ but also the K+ in infiltrated water in the soil [37]. CROSS can be defined as
C R O S S f = ( N a + 0.56 K ) [ ( C a + 0.6 M g ) / 2 ] 0.5
where the ion concentrations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+) are expressed in mmolc L−1. The subscript f indicates the numerical coefficients 0.56 and 0.6, based on the relative flocculant powers of K+ and Mg2+, respectively.

3. Results and Discussion

Determining the concentration of ions in water allows us to know which ones are predominant. The present study found that the concentrations did not exceed 30 mmolc L−1 during both the dry and rainy seasons. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the ionic distribution in surface water and underground water during the dry and rainy seasons.
According to the ionic composition, the predominant cation is calcium, and bicarbonate is the main ion. This is expected in this area due to the predominance of limestone and basaltic rocks; this adds these elements to the water. Another cause of these concentrations could be the discharge of agricultural wastewater containing fertilizer residues from the surrounding areas.
The pH during the dry season presents an average of 6.7. The EC is classified as C2, medium-salinity waters, with more than 50% of the sites having values of 250 to 750 µS cm−1. Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the pH and electric conductivity values for the dry and rainy seasons, respectively, found in surface and underground water in the region.
The pH values from water sampled during the rainy season had an average of 6.8. The EC of the water was classified as medium salinity (C2). When maintained in the interval between 5.5 and 6.5, these values proved more suitable for agricultural irrigation, as ions are easily bioavailable to plants [38,39].
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR): The water samples classify the SAR for all sites as S1, indicating low-sodium water with high concentrations of calcium and magnesium. This shows that it is of good quality for irrigation [40]. In terms of salinity, the samples suggest a low to high distribution, classified as C1, C2, C3, and C4. Nevertheless, during the dry and rainy seasons, most of the sampled sites presented low and medium salinity water.
Figure 6 shows the sodium adsorption ratio and electric conductivity of underground and surface water samples from the dry (a) and (b) rainy seasons.
The sites with C3 water were groundwater sites. This means the water is saline and, thus, has high electrical conductivity. Water is not considered appropriate for crop irrigation if it has an EC greater than 0.750 dS m−1 and a RAS above 3 mmolc L−1. If the water exceeds these values, the soil and crops are more exposed to salinity and sodicity, by definition meaning that the water is not recommended for agricultural use [41].
With respect to salinity, this water can be used for crop irrigation provided that the crops are moderately tolerant to salt. Sites in the C3 (highly saline) and C4 classifications (very highly saline) have water that is not appropriate for crop irrigation, so salt-tolerant and very salt-tolerant plants should be considered, like tomatoes, wheat, sorghum, alfalfa, and barley [42,43,44].
Our data match those for water with low sodium levels [45], as these soils have a low probability of becoming sodic. On the other hand, when the SAR has high levels, sodium cannot conduct water and oxygen, so the available salts cannot be considered plant nutrients.
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC). Figure 7 shows the surface and underground water classifications for the region.
All surface water at the sites sampled during the 2022 dry season is considered suitable for crop irrigation according to the limits established by [46]. In total, 90% of the underground water sites showed good conditions for agricultural use, while 10% were conditioned water.
During the rainy season, 100% of the surface water sites are appropriate for use; 91% of the underground sites are in good condition, 6% are conditioned, and 3% are not recommended for irrigation. In conclusion, most of the sites sampled between seasons can be used without restriction; most of the sites presented values less than <1.25; five underground water sites presented conditioned water; and one site cannot be recommended, with values above the >2.50 (mmolc L−1) limit.
The authors of [47] evaluated the water quality at the lagoon in Manialtepec, with only four samples presenting values above 2.5 mmolc L−1. The other samples were appropriate for agricultural use, meaning that using this site will not cause alkalinity problems in the soil. The author of [48] determined that a high RSC concentration can negatively affect soil, including salinization and sodification factors, increasing the solubilization of molecular organic matter and decreasing the infiltration rate and its hydraulic conductivity.
Structural stability cationic ratio (CROSS): The classifications determined based on surface and underground water structural stability are represented in Figure 8.
The dry season samples can be classified as S1, low sodium, while 16%, 49%, 32%, and 2% of the samples can be classified as C1, C2, C3, and C4 regarding salinity. Similarly, the rainy season samples were also S1, whereas 12% were C1 (low salinity), 56% were C2 (medium salinity), 27% were C3, and only 4% were C4 (very saline).
Similarities were found between this research and a study carried out on the Lerma-Chapala Santiago River, State of Mexico [49], which indicated a slight increase in values, at some sites. Unlike RAS, due to the addition of K+ and Mg2+ cations and their concentrations, the water samples were concentrated in classes C2S1 and C1S1, implying a low risk of salinization and sodification in the soils. This is because, during the high rainy season, the water quality in the hydrographic systems improves considerably due to the dilution effect; during the second sampling, the water quality decreased slightly, and 82% of the sites were concentrated in classes C2S1, C2S2, C3S2, and C3S3. However, the author of [50] suggested that these waters can still be used for irrigation with preventive measures and good soil and irrigation management practices.
These values are different from those of [51] who reported evidence of water quality evaluated in Tierra Nueva, San Luis Potosi, Mexico, incorporating the CROSS index, this index indicated that in the two samples taken most of the samples were classified as S1 waters of excellent quality, these waters can be suitable for agricultural irrigation. However, there was a slight variation in the rest of the samples placing them as waters not suitable for use (S4), and this variation is attributed to a high concentration of K+ in the water, and in the surroundings are farmland that can contribute this ion to the water through leaching.

4. Conclusions

With respect to salinity and sodicity, the water quality at the sampled sites for both surface and groundwater is considered good for agricultural use.
Given that it was sampled during two seasons, the ion concentrations varied during the rainy season, with the dragging of materials causing the ions to concentrate to a greater extent.
This type of research benefits farmers by reducing production costs, providing knowledge on the water quality, and aiding in decision making.
We recommend that the alkaline pH of the surface and groundwaters be conditioned according to the requirements of the crop to be grown and the irrigation method to be used.
To continue this type of research and conduct a more thorough study, it will be necessary to incorporate a soil analysis to determine soil composition, making appropriate use of water resources so as not to affect crop growth.
Future research should include other types of analysis, such as pesticide analysis, since there are agricultural areas in the region where these products are used on crops, possibly affecting the water quality. It is also recommended that monitoring be carried out in water bodies to evaluate the presence of residues from emerging contaminants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.O.-L., R.D.G.-G., J.U.A.-R. and Á.C.-C.; formal analysis, F.V.-C., O.R.M.-V. and J.A.L.-F.; investigation, F.V.-C. and O.R.M.-V.; data curation, F.V.-C., O.R.M.-V. and J.A.L.-F.; writing—original draft, F.V.-C. and O.R.M.-V.; writing—review and editing, F.V.-C., O.R.M.-V. and E.C.-C.; supervision, O.R.M.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author for legal or ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONAHCyT) for funding Fabiola Villafaña Castillo’s scholarship for Master’s studies. We thank Carlos Palomera-García, Yanira Lizandy Rosas Rodríguez, and Jorge Isaac Martínez Corona for your contributions in making this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Fernández, C.A. El agua: Un recurso esencial. Química Viva 2012, 11, 147–170. [Google Scholar]
  2. Delgado, E.J.B. Análisis de la Calidad de Agua para Riego en Suelos Agrícolas en la Parroquia Rural Colonche, Provincia de Santa Elena. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad de Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2021; pp. 1–106. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cárdenas-Ochoa, N.D. Diagnóstico y Evaluación del Agua Que Abastece a la Comunidad de la Vereda el Tablón Municipio de Santa Rosa de Viterbo. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia UNAD, Duitama, Colombia, 2020; pp. 1–80. [Google Scholar]
  4. Escalona-Domenech, R.Y.; Infante-Mata, D.; García-Alfaro, J.R.; Ramírez-Marcial, N.; Ortiz-Arrona, C.I.; Macías-Barba, E. Evaluación de la calidad del agua y de la ribera en la cuenca del río Margaritas, Chiapas, México. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambiental. 2022, 38, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Castellón-Gómez, J.J.; Bernal, M.R.; Hernández, R.M.L. Calidad del agua para riego en la agricultura protegida para Tlaxcala. Ingeniería 2015, 19, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  6. Valcarce, O.R.M.; Vega, C.M.; Rodríguez, M.W.; Suárez, G.O. Vulnerabilidad intrínseca de las aguas subterráneas en la cuenca Almendares, Vento. La Habana, Cuba. Ing. Hidrául. Ambiental. 2020, 61, 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jamal, K.; Louche, B.; Carlier, E.; Chaaban, F.; Darwishe, H. Impact of fertilizer application and agricultural crops on the quality of groundwater in the alluvial aquifer, Northern France. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2018, 229, 128. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pulido-Bosch, A.; Vallejos, A.F.; Sola, J.C.; Cerón, J.M.; Andreu, J.P.; Rigol, S.; Molina, S.L. Impacts of agricultural irrigation on groundwater salinity. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cantú, M.F.G.; Ventura, H.R.; Heyer, R.L.; Guevara, G.N. Calidad de agua para riego agrícola en el agua subterránea de la zona árida del suroeste de Tamaulipas, México. Rev. Agro Productividad. 2018, 11, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Moya, T.J. Riego Localizado y Fertirrigación, 4th ed.; Editorial Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rashidi, M.; Seilsepour, M. Prediction of soil sodium adsorption ratio based on soil electrical conductivity. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 2011, 8, 379–383. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mendoza-Cano, O. Metales pesados y el agua de consumo en Colima. In Una Cuestión de Salud Pública; Universidad de Colima: Colima, Mexico, 2017; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  13. Anzaldo, C.B.N. Calidad del Agua Subterránea en Zacoalco de Torres y Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco. Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur (CUCSUR), Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2019; pp. 1–146. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fregoso-Zamorano, B.E. Calidad de Las Aguas de Riego de la Cuenca del río Ayuquila-Tuxcacuesco-Armería. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2015; pp. 1–158. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hernández-Vargas, O. Calidad del Agua de Dos Cuencas Tributarias del Río Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2017; pp. 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rodríguez, A.B.A. Análisis de Plaguicidas Como Fuente de Contaminación de Agua Superficial Dentro de la Cuenca del Río Ayuquila-Armería. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2017; pp. 1–225. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sandoval, M.M.T. Contaminación por plaguicidas en acuíferos del Valle de Autlán, Jalisco. Rev. Iberoam. Investig. Desarro. Educativo. 2015, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  18. Instituto de Información Estadística y Geográfica de Jalisco (IIEG). Diagnóstico de la Región. Región Sierra de Amula Jalisco. 2023, pp. 1–50. Available online: https://iieg.gob.mx/ns/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sierra-Amula.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2025).
  19. Instituto de Información Estadística y Geográfica de Jalisco (IIEG). Diagnóstico de la Región. Región Sierra de Amula Jalsico. 2022, pp. 1–51. Available online: https://iieg.gob.mx/ns/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/07-Sierra-Amula-Diagn%C3%B3stico.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2025).
  20. Instituto de Información Estadística y Geográfica de Jalisco (IIEG). Diagnóstico del Municipio. Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco. 2018, pp. 1–52. Available online: https://iieg.gob.mx/contenido/Municipios/AutlandeNavarro.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  21. Gobierno de Jalisco. Plan de Desarrollo 2030 de la Región 07 Sierra de Amula. Jalisco, México. 2aEdición. 2011. pp. 1–207. Available online: https://transparenciafiscal.jalisco.gob.mx/sites/default/files/plan_de_desarrollo_region_07_sierra_de_amula_vp1.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2024).
  22. Gerritsen, R.W.P.; Castillo, C.X.C.; Álvarez, G.N.S. Algunas consideraciones sobre la transición a la agricultura sustentable en el occidente de México. Agroecología 2012, 7, 85–100. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gerritsen, P.; Beas, P.; García, A.; Garibay, M.; González, R.; Mastache, E.; Ortiz, S.; Marcial, A.; Topete, C. Instituciones, programas de Desarrollo rural y campesinos: Studio de caso del valle Autlán-El Grullo, región Sierra de Amula, Jalisco, Occidente de México. Soc. Rural. Prod. Medio Ambiente 2015, 15, 84–109. [Google Scholar]
  24. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, part 3. In Determination of Metals, 17th ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; 164p. [Google Scholar]
  25. Robarge, W.P.; Edwards, A.; Jhonson, B. Water and waste water analysis for nitrate via nitration of saliylic acid. Comm. Soil Sci. Plan Anal. 1933, 14, 1207–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cruz-Falcón, A.; Troyo, D.E.; Murillo, J.J.M.; García, H.J.L.; Murillo, A.B. Familias de agua subterránea y distribución de sólidos totales disueltos en el acuífero de La Paz Baja California Sur, México. Terra Latinoam. 2018, 36, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Quinteros-Carabali, J.; Gómez, G.J.; Solano, M.; Llumiquinga, G.; Burgos, C.; Carrera, V.D. Evaluación de la calidad de agua para riego y aprovechamiento del recurso hídrico de la quebrada Togllahuayco. Siembra 2019, 6, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zárate-Martínez, W.; Felipe-Victoriano, M.; Martínez-Silva, F.E.; Móreno-León, K.; Arispe-Vázquez, J.L.; Diáz-Najera, J.F. Propiedades químicas del suelo y calidad del agua en Mihuatlán de Porfirio Díaz y Ejutla de Crespo, Oaxaca, México. Ecosistemas Recur. Agropecu. 2024, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  29. Avelar, R.A.U. Índices de Salinidad y de Sodicidad en Aguas Residuales del Alto y Bajo Pánuco. Ph.D. Thesis, Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Mexico, 2017; pp. 1–245. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zárate-Martínez; Westcot, D.W. Water Quality for Agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 Rev. 1, Roma, 176p. 1985. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b1345105-e9e6-4704-81cc-577f8e187278/content (accessed on 2 May 2024).
  31. Hussein, A.H.; Rabenhorst, M.C. Tidal inundation of transgressive coastal areas: Pedogenesis of salinization and alkalinization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romay, C.; Sainato, C.M.; Iseas, M.S.; Lemeillet, F. Comportamiento del proceso de infiltración del agua en un suelo bajo riego complementario. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Cien. Suelo 2023, 41, 121–150. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mogollón, J.P.; Fernández, C.T.; Garrido, H.; Cordero, A.; Quintero, D.A.; Castillo, Y.; Colmenares, Y. Determination of groundwater quality for Irrigation use in agricultural systems. Cienc. Revoluc. 2021, 7, 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lobaco-Mejía, V.; Cruz-Sánchez, M.; Esquivel-Macías, C.; Ramírez-Cardona, M.; Flores-Castro, K. Evaluación del acuífero Valle de Tulancingo para propósitos de irrigación. Tópicos de Investig. Cienc. Tierra Mater. 2022, 9, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  35. Arienzo, M.; Christen, E.W.; Quayle, W.; Kumar, A. A review of the of potassium in the soil-plant system after land application of wastewaters. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arienzo, M.; Christen, E.W.; Jayawardane, N.S.; Quayle, W. The relatives effects of sodium and potassium on soil hydraulic conductivity and implications for winery wastewater management. Geoderma 2012, 173–174, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Smith, C.J.; Oster, J.D.; Sposito, G. Potassium and magnesium in irrigation water quality assessment. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 157, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aguilar, L.L.J. Beneficios de las Soluciones Nutritivas, Para el Desarrollo y Crecimiento de Plantas Hidropónicas del Cultivo de Lechuga (Lactuca sativa L.). Bachelor’s Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo, Babahoyo, Ecuador, 2022; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ortiz, V.M.I.; Can, C.Á.; Romero, B.C.A.; Cruz, C.E.; Madueño, M.A. Calidad del agua para uso agrícola del río Mololoa, México. Terra Latinoam 2019, 37, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Richards, L.A.; Suelos Salinos y Sódicos. Personal del laboratorio de Salinidad de los Estados Unidos de América. Manual de Agricultura No. 60. 1973, p. 172. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/document/372184744/Diagnostico-y-Reabilitacion-de-Suelos-Salinos-y-Sodicos (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  41. Guerrero, J.; Hernández, B.; Castellanos, L. Calidad del agua para sistemas de riego en Colombia. Rev. Ambien. Agua Aire Suelo 2021, 12, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rocha, E.D.S.; Aquino, R.J.H.; Cayo, C.N.G. Caracterización hidroquímica de aguas subterráneas dentro del área de cobertura del caudal Cajamarca. Bolivia. Ingeniería 2023, 33, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  43. Anaya, R.D. Análisis de la Calidad de Agua Para Riego del Río Mosna, Santa Cruz de Mosna, Áncash; Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo: Trujillo, Perú, 2024; pp. 1–104. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mancilla, V.O.R. Índices de Salinidad y Calidad de las Aguas Superficiales de Tlaxcala, Puebla y Veracruz. Ph.D. Thesis, Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Mexico, 2012; pp. 1–263. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ramírez, D.E.; Yfran, E.M.; Rodríguez, S.C. Análisis y clasificación de aguas de perforaciones para el uso en la agricultura, departamento Lavalle, Corrientes-Argentina. Cultiv. Trop. 2023, 44, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilcox, L.V.; Balir, G.Y.; Brower, C.A. Effect of bicarbonate on suitability of water for irrigation. Soil Sci. 1954, 77, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Juárez de la Cruz, E.O. Calidad Agrícola de las Aguas Superficiales y Subterráneas de la Cuenca del Oriental y del Valle de Tehuacán-Zapotitlán, Estado de Puebla. Ph.D. Thesis, Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Mexico, 2021; pp. 1–241. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cano, O.J.W. Metales pesados y aptitud agropecuaria del agua en una irrigación. Rev. Investig. 2022, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pallares, G.B.S. Caracterización Físico-Química de las Aguas Residuales del Río Lerma-Chapala-Santiago. Ph.D. Thesis, Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Mexico, 2022; pp. 1–365. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rengasamy, P.; Marchuk. Cation ratio of soil structural stability (CROSS). Soil Res. 2011, 49, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. González-Acevedo, Z.I.; Padilla-Reyes, D.A.; Ramos-Leal, J.A. Quality assessment of irrigation water related to soil salinization in Tierra Nueva, San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Geológicas 2016, 33, 271–285. [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 15 00278 g001
Figure 1. Study sites in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
Figure 1. Study sites in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
Agriculture 15 00278 g001
Agriculture 15 00278 g002
Figure 2. Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the dry season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.
Figure 2. Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the dry season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.
Agriculture 15 00278 g002
Agriculture 15 00278 g003
Figure 3. Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the rainy season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.
Figure 3. Ionic concentration in surface and underground water during the rainy season in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco.
Agriculture 15 00278 g003
Agriculture 15 00278 g004
Figure 4. Electric conductivity and pH during the dry season.
Figure 4. Electric conductivity and pH during the dry season.
Agriculture 15 00278 g004
Agriculture 15 00278 g005
Figure 5. Electric conductivity and pH during the rainy season.
Figure 5. Electric conductivity and pH during the rainy season.
Agriculture 15 00278 g005
Agriculture 15 00278 g006
Figure 6. (a,b). Classification diagram of sodium adsorption ratio and electric conductivity for surface and underground water samples obtained in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
Figure 6. (a,b). Classification diagram of sodium adsorption ratio and electric conductivity for surface and underground water samples obtained in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
Agriculture 15 00278 g006
Agriculture 15 00278 g007
Figure 7. Residual sodium carbonate during the dry and rainy seasons.
Figure 7. Residual sodium carbonate during the dry and rainy seasons.
Agriculture 15 00278 g007
Agriculture 15 00278 g008
Figure 8. Classification of surface and underground water electrical conductivity and structural stability cationic ratio (CROSS) in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, during the (a) dry and (b) rainy seasons.
Figure 8. Classification of surface and underground water electrical conductivity and structural stability cationic ratio (CROSS) in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, during the (a) dry and (b) rainy seasons.
Agriculture 15 00278 g008
Table 1. Methods used to analyze physicochemical parameters of water sampled from the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
Table 1. Methods used to analyze physicochemical parameters of water sampled from the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico.
DeterminationMethodReference
pHBeckman brand potentiometer, Hoffman Pinther Bosworth model.4500– H+B [24]
Electrical ConductivityWheatstone bridge conductivity meter with glass cells; range, 0.1 to 10 mS cm−1.25108 [24]
CarbonatesVolumetric titration with 0.01 N sulfuric acid; phenolphthalein indicator.2320 B [24]
BicarbonatesVolumetric titration with 0.01 N sulfuric acid; methyl orange indicator.2320 B [24]
ChloridesMohr method titration with 0.01 N silver nitrate; K2CrO4 indicator.4500– Cl B [24]
Calcium and magnesiumVolumetric titration with EDTA 0.01 N; black Eriochrome indicator.3500 Ca D [24]
CalciumVolumetric titration with EDTA 0.01; murexide indicator.3500 Ca D [24]
Sodium and potassiumFlamometry. IL Autocal Flame Photometer, 643 brand flame meter at 589 nm, calibrated with a standard solution of 140 for Na and mmolc L−1 for K.3500– Na and K, D [24]
SulfatesTurbidimetry. Model spectrophotometer at 420 nm.4500– SO4 E [24]
NitratesSalicylic acid nitration with spectrophotometry using the Perkin Elmer 35 model spectrophotometer, L = 410 nm.[25]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mancilla-Villa, O.R.; Villafaña-Castillo, F.; Can-Chulim, Á.; Guevara-Gutiérrez, R.D.; Olguín-López, J.L.; Cruz-Crespo, E.; Luna-Fletes, J.A.; Avelar-Roblero, J.U. Quality of Surface and Groundwater in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico. Agriculture 2025, 15, 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030278

AMA Style

Mancilla-Villa OR, Villafaña-Castillo F, Can-Chulim Á, Guevara-Gutiérrez RD, Olguín-López JL, Cruz-Crespo E, Luna-Fletes JA, Avelar-Roblero JU. Quality of Surface and Groundwater in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico. Agriculture. 2025; 15(3):278. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030278

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mancilla-Villa, Oscar Raúl, Fabiola Villafaña-Castillo, Álvaro Can-Chulim, Rubén Darío Guevara-Gutiérrez, José Luis Olguín-López, Elia Cruz-Crespo, Jonas Alan Luna-Fletes, and Juan Uriel Avelar-Roblero. 2025. "Quality of Surface and Groundwater in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico" Agriculture 15, no. 3: 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030278

APA Style

Mancilla-Villa, O. R., Villafaña-Castillo, F., Can-Chulim, Á., Guevara-Gutiérrez, R. D., Olguín-López, J. L., Cruz-Crespo, E., Luna-Fletes, J. A., & Avelar-Roblero, J. U. (2025). Quality of Surface and Groundwater in the Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco, Mexico. Agriculture, 15(3), 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030278

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop