STUDIES ON SALINITY TOLERANCE IN SOME POME ROOTSTOCKS
2-Nutritional status (leaf mineral content)
Sharaf, M.M.*;Bakry,Kh.A.* and Darwish,D.R.**
* Hort. Dep. Fac. of Agric. Benha Univ.
**Hort. Institute, GizaEgypt
ABSTRACT
It was aimed to investigate effect of water salinity onM.M. 106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks to the response of the nutritional status.In this regardnutritional status (leaf, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn and Na contents) in response to the included treatments of experiments were investigated.Data obtained revealed that the interaction between soil kind; salinity levels; sodium adsorption ratio and chloride level (Cl: so4 ratio) was obviously detected.Regarding to leaf mineral composition, the irrigated M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in sandy soil with the highest concentration saline solution (6000 ppm) of higher SAR (6) and Cl: SO4 ratio had the richest leaves in their Ca and Na contents associated with the least levels of N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn. The trend took the other way around with control (continuously irrigated transplants with tap water) followed by those supplied with 2000 ppm saline solution of lower SAR (3) and lower Cl: SO4 ratio where the least values of leaf Ca and Na contents with the higher N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn contents were recorded especially M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in clay soil.
Introduction
Apple and Pear are of the most important deciduous fruits in the world. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the area planted with apple and pear in order to meet the continuous rise in demand for apple and pear fruits for local consumption.
Nowadays, land reclamation projects in Egypt occupy a very important sector in the agricultural development programmes for increasing the cultivated area. Beside, agricultural expansion needs a great amount of suitable irrigation water which already is not sufficient to meet all the expected demand in this respect. As long as there is an obvious shortage in Nile water supply, especially to provide the new reclaimable areas.So, the projects of reclamation depends on another sources such as: Wells, sanitary drainage, diluted sea water…. etc.
Generally; at such areas, the problems of soil salinity and saline water used for irrigation is considered as a limiting factor for the success of such projects. In addition; through this year, the cultivated area is continuously rising in order to meet the steady increase in apple and pear demand. Moreover, plans are developed to establish new apple and pear orchards on new reclaimed soils such as calcareous and sandy soils. Therefore, many problems are expected to arise. These problems would be related to the excessive accumulation of soluble salts in the soil as an actual limiting factors for growth and productivity of apple and pear orchards. Moreover, agricultural expansion needs a great amount of suitable irrigation water which already is not sufficient to meet all the expected demands. For that the possibility of using saline water for irrigation, especially underground water is of great value, but till now it is still very limited, because this water contain a considerable amount of harmful salts. The applicability of saline water for irrigation is first of all dependent upon the concentration, composition of salts dissolved therein, and upon the degree to which plants are salt tolerance.
some investigators have reported that some fruit species had no tolerance to the high salinity levels such as Hindi mango cultivar (El-Hefnawy,1986).Osman (2005)indicated that, the apple leaf N, P, K, Mg, Zn and Mn contents decreased with increasing salt concentration in irrigation water, while the reverse was true with leaf Cl, Na, Ca and Fe contents.
The main objective of the present investigation was planned to study the response of chemical composition of two rootstocks seedlings (M.M.106 and Pyrus communis) grown in three soil kinds(clay, calcareous and sandy) to irrigation with salinized water, prepared at different salts concentrations (2000, 4000 and 6000 ppm) and two levels of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR 3 and 6) with two levels of chloride:sulphate ratio (Low and high) .
Materials and Methods
The present investigation was carried out during two successive seasons of 2001 and 2002 in a greenhouse belonging to the Horticulture Research Station, El Kanater,Qalyubia Governorate,Egypt.
Two year old, uniform and healthy transplants of two pomes rootstocks namely: (M.M. 106 and Pyrus communis) were the plant material used in this study. On February 1st during both seasons apple rootstock transplants were transplanted individually each in clay pot 35 cm. in diameter that previously had been filled with about 10 kg clay , calcarous or sandy soils (brought from Qaloub, Wady El-Mulak and Belbies, respectivelly). Soil was taken from ground surface layer at 0-30 cm depth then mechanically and chemically analysed just before prior investigated treatments had been started (Table,1).
Table(1): Physical and chemical analysis of the experimental soils.
soils / Soil texture / Granules % / pH / E.C. m mhos/cm / Soluble cations / Soluble anionsclay / silt / Fine sand % / Coarse sand % / Ca++ / Mg++ / Na+ / K+ / CO3= / HCO3- / Cl- / SO4=
Clay / Clay / 46.8 / 38.5 / 9.6 / 5.1 / 7.55 / 5.5 / 20.14 / 3.68 / 38 / 0.78 / - / 2.84 / 28.8 / 31.61
Calcareous / Sandy clay / 12.1 / 2.8 / 7.8 / 77.3 / 7.6 / 7.7 / 36.92 / 3.28 / 49 / 0.98 / - / 2.00 / 33.4 / 55.07
Sand / Sandy / 4.6 / 2.1 / 1.4 / 91.9 / 7.8 / 2.2 / 9.38 / 1.94 / 10 / 0.68 / - / 1.92 / 5.84 / 14.24
Irrigation was carried out twice weekly by adding one liter tap water per each pot until, investigated treatments of this study was started in both experimental seasons.All pots were fertilized with complex fertilizer “New star” contain N, P2O5, K2O and S (15, 15, 15 and 12%) as well as Fe; Mn and Zn microelements in chelated form. This fertilizer was applied weekly at the rate of 248 ml/pot from 2% newly prepared solution of this fertilizer from 1st February till March 28th. However irrigation with the different saline solutions was started on April 1st during both seasons of study.
Fourty eight treatments represented the different possible combinations between four investigated factors namely; a) three soil kinds (clay, calcareous and sandy); b) saline concentrations (2000; 4000 and 6000 ppm); c) SAR (3 & 6) and d) Cl: SO4 ratios (low & high), beside irrigation with tap water as control were investigated.Thus; the investigated saline solutions were as follows:
1- Tap water (Control).;2- 2000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and lower Cl : SO4 rate.; 3- 2000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.; 4- 2000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and lower Cl : SO4 rate.; 5- 2000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.; 6- 4000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and lower Cl : SO4 rate.; 7-4000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.; 8- 4000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and lower Cl : SO4 rate.; 9- 4000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.; 10- 6000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and lower Cl : SO4 rate.; 11- 6000 ppm saline solution with SAR 3 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.; 12- 6000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and lower Cl : SO4 rate. and 13- 6000 ppm saline solution with SAR 6 and higher Cl : SO4 rate.The above mentioned saline solutions were prepared as shown in Table (2).
Table ( 2): Preparation of different saline solutions used.
Saline solution / Salt added per literCaCI2 / MgSO4 / KCI / K2SO4 / Na2SO4 / NaCI / SAR* / Cl meq./L / SO4 meq./L / Cl /SO4ratio
g / meq. / g / meq. / g / meq. / g / meq. / g / meq. / g / meq.
2000 ppm SAR3 low Cl / 0.45 / 8.108 / 0.50 / 8.333 / 0.08 / 1.073 / 0.42 / 4.827 / 0.25 / 3.521 / 0.30 / 5.128 / 3 / 14.30 / 16.681 / 0.857
2000 ppm SAR3 high Cl / 0.80 / 14.414 / 0.18 / 3.000 / 0.40 / 5.369 / 0.10 / 1.149 / 0.02 / 0.281 / 0.50 / 8.546 / 3 / 28.33 / 4.430 / 6.395
2000 ppm SAR6 low Cl / 0.35 / 6.306 / 0.25 / 4.166 / 0.15 / 2.013 / 0.35 / 4.022 / 0.55 / 7.747 / 0.35 / 5.982 / 6 / 14.30 / 15.935 / 0.897
2000 ppm SAR6 high Cl / 0.54 / 9.703 / 1.10 / 1.666 / 0.42 / 5.637 / 0.08 / 0.919 / 0.10 / 1.408 / 0.76 / 12.99 / 6 / 28.35 / 3.993 / 7.100
4000 ppm SAR3 low Cl / 1.10 / 19.819 / 1.07 / 17.833 / 0.05 / 0.670 / 0.95 / 10.910 / 0.38 / 5.352 / 0.45 / 7.692 / 3 / 28.18 / 34.095 / 0.827
4000 ppm SAR3 high Cl / 1.80 / 32.430 / 0.40 / 6.660 / 0.90 / 12.080 / 0.10 / 1.150 / 0.10 / 1.408 / 0.70 / 11.965 / 3 / 56.47 / 9.218 / 6.126
4000 ppm SAR6 low Cl / 0.72 / 12.972 / 0.88 / 14.666 / 0.04 / 0.530 / 0.96 / 1 1.030 / 0.54 / 7.605 / 0.86 / 14.700 / 6 / 28.20 / 33.301 / 0.847
4000 ppm SAR6 high Cl / 1.25 / 22.522 / 0.40 / 6.666 / 0.87 / 11.677 / 0.13 / 1.494 / 0.05 / 0.704 / 1.30 / 22.222 / 6 / 56.42 / 8.864 / 6.365
6000 ppm SAR3 low Cl / 1.20 / 21.620 / 2.2 / 37.500 / 0.02 / 0.268 / 0.45 / 16.666 / 0.71 / 10.000 / 0.37 / 6.325 / 3 / 28.20 / 64.166 / 0.440
6000 ppm SAR3 high Cl / 2.20 / 39.639 / 1.25 / 20.833 / 0.23 / 3.087 / 0.32 / 15.172 / 0.20 / 2.820 / 0.80 / 13.679 / 3 / 56.40 / 38.825 / 1.453
6000 ppm SAR6 low Cl / 1.11 / 20.000 / 1.20 / 20.000 / 0.03 / 0.403 / 1.85 / 21.264 / 1.35 / 19.070 / 0.46 / 7.790 / 6 / 28.20 / 60.334 / 0.467
6000 ppm SAR6 high Cl / 1.67 / 30.000 / 0.60 / 10.000 / 0.44 / 5.838 / 1.65 / 8.960 / 0.45 / 6.338 / 1.20 / 20.510 / 6 / 56.35 / 35.292 / 1.596
Salts added in grams were estimated as anydrous form
*SAR = Meq
Whereas, transplants of each rootstock were subjected to the differential 13 irrigation solutions (3 saline concentrations x 2 SAR ratios x 2 Cl : SO4 ratios) beside tap water as control.Thus,two factorial experiments were conducted to investigated the above mentioned salinity treatments through the response of each rootstock transplants individually . The different treatments were arranged in a complete randomized block design where each treatment was replicated three times with two pots per every replicate.
As each experiment devoted for every rootstock had been terminated on November (1st and 5th) during both 2001 and 2002 seasons, respectively, the following chemical analysiswere recorded:
- Leaf mineral determination:samples of the third pairs of leaves from the base of none fruiting shoots were collected in mid August in both seasons of the study. Samples were cleaned from adherent dust and dried at 70o C for 72 hours, ground to fine powder and digested according to Chapman and Pratt, (1961). The ground dried materials of leaf samples were analyzed for total nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese and zinc by the method of A.O.A.C, (1985).
-Statistical analysis:
All data of the present investigation were subjected to analysis of variance and significant differences among means were determined according to (Snedecor and Cochran, 1972). In addition; significant differences among means were distinguished according to the Duncan's multiple test range (Duncan, 1955), whereas capital and small letters were used for differentiating the values of specific and interaction effects of the investigated factors, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISSCUSION
- Leaf mineral composition:
Data obtained from Tables (3-11) during both seasons regarding the leaf N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn , Zn and Na contents of M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants in response to specific and interaction effects of soil kind; salt concentration; SAR and chloride level (Cl: SO4 ratio) and their possible combinations could be summarized as follows:
A- Specific effect:
Referring the specific effect of soil hind, data obtained during both season revealed that M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in clay soil exceeded statistically the two other soils (calcareous and sandy) regarding their leaves N, P, K, Mg and Zn contents. However, M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in clay soil had the least Ca, Fe, Mn and Na levels. However, M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in sandy soil leaves had the highest level of Ca, Fe, Mn and Na that associated with the least values of N, P, K, Mg and Zn contents. Meanwhile, M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in calcareous soil in most cases was intermediate as compared to two other soil kinds in this concern.
As for the specific effect of salt concentrations, the leaves N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn contents decreased significantly and gradually with increasing salt concentration in irrigation water, while the reverse was found with leaf Ca and Na contents during two seasons of study.
Increasing either sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) from 3 to 6 and /or chloride level (CL: So4 ratio) in irrigation water significantly decreased leaf N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn contents, while the reverse was true with leaf Ca and Na contents, where raising either SAR or Cl: SO4 ratio increased them significantly during two seasons of study.
B- Interaction effect:
Regarding the interaction effect of various combinations between four investigated factors (soil kind; salt concentration; sodium adsorption ratio and Cl: So4 ratio), data obtained during 2001 & 2002 experimental seasons revealed that specific effect of each investigated factor was directly reflected on its own combinations. Herein, the irrigated M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in sandy soil irrigated with the highest concentrated saline solution (6000 ppm) of higher SAR (6) and Cl: SO4 ratio had the richest leaves in their Ca and Na contents associated with the least levels of N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn. The trend took the other way around with control (continuously irrigated transplants with tap water) followed by those supplied with 2000 ppm saline solution of lower SAR (3) and lower Cl: SO4 ratio where the least values of leaf Ca and Na contents with the higher N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn and Zn contents were recorded especially M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks transplants grown in clay soil.
The increase in salt uptake which caused nutritional imbalance in the plant by depressing N, P and K uptake Faruque, (1968). The increase in pH value in root medium, the matter that makes many nutrients becoming unavailable to the plants (Russell, 1982).
Generally, it could be concluded that the reduction in growth of apple rootstock seedlings associated with salinity stress noticed in the present investigation might be attributed to the process of building up the osmotic pressure of the developing cells by adjusting salts accumulation to meet the increasing osmotic pressure of the rooting medium (Bernstein, 1975 and Munns et al., 1982). It might also be due to the result of specific toxic effects of some ions excessively absorbed from saline soil solution.
The imbalance in nutritional cations in tissues of salt- stressed plants may be responsible for the depression of growth Strogonov, (1962) in connection with these views, Greenway, (1963) stated that salinity reduced plant height either by making osmotic cell enlargement dependent on solute accumulation or by the drastic changes in the ion relation. Reduction of growth of apple salt- stressed plants could also be attributed to the reduction in carbon fixation by photosynthesis and to increasing carbon release in respiration (Gale, 1975).
The changes in many metabolic process including enzyme activity, protein synthesis and the activity of mitochondria and chloroplasts might also play role in growth reduction of salt- stressed plants (Poljackoff and Gale, 1975).
Balba, (1984) stated that the harmful effect of salts on plant growth is related to nutrient changing of their forms in the soil or to competition between the salt cations and anions with the nutrients. Other causes are more related to the plant itself, which affect its ability to absorb water or directly affect the plant biochemical processes due to toxicity.
Literature cited
A.O.A.C. (1985): Association of Official of Analytical Chemist. 14th Ed. Published by the P.O. Box 540,Washington, 4 D.C., USA.
Balba, A.M. (1984): Salinity and crop production reuse of drainage water. Proceeding of the reuse workshop. Held in Cairo. Egypt. March.
Bernstein, L.(1975):Effect of salinity and sodality on plant growth. Amer. Rev. of Phytopathology, 13: 295-311.
Chapman, H. D. and Paratt, P. E. (1961): Methods and analysis of soils, plant and water. Univ.
Calif.Div. Agric. Sci. Berkely, pp. 309.
Duncan, B.D. (1955): Multiple test range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 11-142.
El-Hefnawy, S.M. (1986): Physiological studies on guava. Ph.D. Thesis Fac. Agric., Zagazig Univ., Egypt.
Faruque, A.H. (1968): The effect of salinity on phytotoxicity and ion uptake of pecan seedlings. Diss . Abst. Sect. B. 29 : 432 (C.F. Hort. Abst. 89: 4465).
Gale, T. (1975): Physiological basis for the reduction of plant growth under conditions of irrigation with brackish water and possible methods of amelioration. International Symposium of Brackish Water as a factor in development. P. 97-102.
Greenway, H. (1963): Plant response to saline substrates. III. Effect of nutrient concentration on the growth and ion uptake of Hordiumvulgaresduring sodium chloride stress. Aust. T.Bial. Sci., 16 (3), 616-628.
Kabeel, H.I. (1985): Physiological studies on salt tolerance of some decidious fruit species. M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Moshtohor, Zagazig. Univ., Egypt.
Munns, R.; Greenway, H.; Delane, R. and Gibbs, J. (1982): Ions concentration and carbohydrate status of the elongating leaf tissue of Hordeum vulgaresgrowing at high external NaCl II. Cause of the growth reduction. Jour. Exp. Bot. 33 : 574-583.
Nasr, T.A.; El- Azab , E.M. and El-Shurafa , M.Y. (1977):Effect of salinity onmineral content of plum and peach . Scientia Hort ., 7 : 347 : 57 .
Osman, A. H. (2005) : Physiological studies on growth and salt tolerance of some apple rootstocks. Ph. D. Thesis., Fac. of Agric. Benha Univ. Egypt.
Poljakoff, A.M. and Gale, J. (1975): Plants in saline environments. Springer verlag. BerlinHeidelberg New York.
Russell, R.S. (1982): Plant root systems. McGraw- Hill Book Co. New York, P. 99.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W. G. (1972): Statistical Methods. 6th ed. The Iowa state, Univ. Press, Amer, Iowa, U.S.A. PP. 593.
Strogonov, B.P. (1962): Physiological basis of salt tolerance of plants. Academy of Science of USSR. Institute of Plant Physiology. English Translation byProgram for Scientific translation, pp.160-175.
الملخص العربي
دراسات علي مقاومةالملوحة فى بعض اصول التفاحيات
2-الحالة الغذائية ( المحتوى المعدنى للأوراق)
محمد محمد شرف* وخالد على بكرى* و درويش رجب درويش**
*قسم البساتين- كلية الزراعة بمشتهر- جامعةبنها.
** معهد بحوث البساتين- الجيزة- مصر
الهدف من هذه الدراسة اختبار تأثير نوع التربة على مقاومة وتحمل أصلين من أصول التفاحيات هما م.م.106 والكميونس لتركيزات الملوحة و نسبة كل من الصوديوم المدمص والكلوريد إلي الكبريتات وعليه فقد تم اختبار 48 معاملة في كل تجربة تمثل التراكيب المختلفة والممكنة بين أربعة عوامل هي (3 أنواع تربة( طينية- جيرية –رملية) × 3 تركيزات ملوحة( 2000، 4000، 6000 جزء في المليون) × 2 مستوى صوديوم مدمص(3 ،6) × 2 مستوى كلوريد(منخفض ، عالي)) بالإضافة إلى الري بماء الصنبور فقط لكل تربة على حدة . وقد تم تقييم التأثير النوعي لكل من العوامل المختبرة وكذلك تأثير التفاعل بين العوامل من خلال استجابةالتقديرات الكيميائية مثل المحتوى المعدني للأوراق من النيتروجين والفسفور والبوتاسيوم والكالسيوم والمغنسيوم والحديد والمنجنيز والزنك والصوديوم واستجابة كل منها لمعاملات التجربة سواء تأثير نوعى أو تفاعلي.
أوضحت النتائج المتحصل عليها بالنسبة للتأثير النوعي والتفاعل بين العوامل المختبرة (نوع التربة وتركيز ملوحة ماء الري والصوديوم المدمص ونسبة الكلوريد) أن جميع تركيزات ملوحة ماء الري المستخدمة أدت إلىنقص تدريجي في محتوى أوراق الأصلين من عناصر النتروجين والفوسفور والبوتاسيوم والمغنسيوم والمنجنيز والزنك وكان التناقص معنوياً مع تدرج التركيز في حين كان العكس صحيحاً بالنسبة لمحتوى الأوراق من عناصر الصوديوم والكالسيوم والحديد خلال موسمي الدراسة.
Table(3): Specific and interaction effects of salt concentrations; sodium adsorption ratio; Cl:SO4 ratio in saline irrigation water; soil types and theircombinationson leaf nitrogencontent (%) of M.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks during 2001& 2002 seasons.
Treatments / Leaf nitrogen content (%)of M.M.106 rootstock2001 / 2002
Conc. / SAR / Cl: SO4 / Soil types / Mean* / Soil types / Mean*
Clay / Calcareous / Sandy / Clay / Calcareous / Sandy
0 / 2.348 a / 2.214 d / 1.921 p / 2.161 A / 2.182 a / 1.641 g / 1.628 g / 1.275 A
2000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 2.278 b
2.266 b / 2.147 f
2.136 g / 1.863 q
1.854 q / 2.080 B / 2.117 b
2.106 b / 1.592 h
1.584 h / 1.579 h
1.571 h / 1.227 B
6 / Low
High / 2.254 c
2.242 c / 2.125 h
2.114 h / 1.844 q
1.834 r / 2.095 b
2.084 c / 1.576 h
1.567 h / 1.563 h
1.554 i
4000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 2.231 d
2.207 d / 2.103 i
2.081 j / 1.825 r
1.806 s / 2.021 C / 2.073 c
2.051 c / 1.559 i
1.543 i / 1.546 i
1.530 i / 1.192 C
6 / Low
High / 2.184 e
2.160 f / 2.059 j
2.037 k / 1.786 s
1.767 t / 2.030 d
2.008 d / 1.526 j
1.510 j / 1.514 j
1.497 j
6000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 2.137 g
2.113 h / 2.014 l
1.992 m / 1.748 t
1.729 u / 1.934 D / 1.986 e
1.964 e / 1.494 k
1.477 k / 1.481 k
1.465 k / 1.141 D
6 / Low
High / 2.090 i
2.066 j / 1.970 n
1.948 o / 1.709 u
1.690 v / 1.942 f
1.920 f / 1.461 k
1.444 l / 1.449 l
1.432 l
Specific effect of: / 2.198 A / 2.072 B / 1.798 C / 2.043 A / 1.536 B / 1.524 C
a-Soil type
b-SAR / SAR 3 = 2.029 A / SAR 6 = 1.993 B / SAR 3 = 1.197 A / SAR 6 = 1.176 B
c-Cl:SO4 / Low = 2.020 A / High = 2.002 B / Low = 1.192 A / High = 1.181 B
Treatments / Leaf nitrogen content (%)of Pyrus communis rootstock
2001 / 2002
Conc. / SAR / Cl: SO4 / Soil types / Mean* / Soil types / Mean*
Clay / Calcareous / Clay / Clay / Calcareous / Clay
0 / 2.147 a / 1.711 h / 1.711 h / 1.856 A / 2.666 a / 1.58 h / 1.428 l / 1.891 A
2000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 2.082 b
2.072 b / 1.660 i
1.651 i / 1.594 k
1.586 k / 1.765 B / 2.586 b
2.573 b / 1.533 i
1.525 i / 1.385 j
1.378 n / 1.820 B
6 / Low
High / 2.061 b
2.050 c / 1.642 i
1.634 i / 1.577 k
1.569 k / 2.559 b
2.546 c / 1.517 i
1.509 i / 1.370 n
1.363 n
4000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 2.039 c
2.018 d / 1.625 j
1.608 j / 1.561 l
1.544 l / 1.714 C / 2.533 c
2.506 d / 1.501 j
1.485 j / 1.356 n
1.342 o / 1.768 C
6 / Low
High / 1.996 d
1.975 e / 1.591 k
1.574 k / 1.528 m
1.512 m / 2.479 d
2.453 e / 1.469 k
1.454 k / 1.328 o
1.313 o
6000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 1.954 e
1.932 f / 1.557 l
1.540 l / 1.495 n
1.479 n / 1.641 D / 2.426 e
2.399 f / 1.438 l
1.422 l / 1.299 p
1.285 p / 1.693 D
6 / Low
High / 1.911 h
1.889 g / 1.523 m
1.506 m / 1.462 o
1.446 o / 2.373 f
2.346 g / 1.406 m
1.390 m / 1.271 p
1.256 q
Specific effect of: / 2.010 A / 1.602 B / 1.543 C / 2.496 A / 1.479 B / 1.336 C
a-Soil type
b-SAR / SAR 3 = 1.722 A / SAR 6 = 1.691 B / SAR 3 = 1.776 A / SAR 6 = 1.745 B
c-Cl:SO4 / Low = 1.714 A / High = 1.699 B / Low = 1.768 A / High = 1.753 B
* refers to specific effect of saline concentration.
Means within the same column or row followed by the same letter/s were not significantly different at 5% level.
Table(4): Specific and interaction effects of salt concentrations; sodium adsorption ratio; Cl:SO4 ratio insaline irrigation water; soil types and theircombinations on leaf phosphorus (%)ofM.M.106 and Pyrus communis rootstocks during 2001& 2002 seasons.
Treatments / Leaf phosphorus (%)of M.M.106 rootstock2001 / 2002
Conc. / SAR / Cl: SO4 / Soil types / Mean* / Soil types / Mean*
Clay / Calcareous / Sandy / Clay / Calcareous / Sandy
0 / 0.289 a / 0.265 c / 0.228 f / 0.261 A / 0.284 a / 0.268 b / 0.232 e / 0.261 A
2000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.282 b
0.269 c / 0.245 e
0.228 f / 0.208 h
0.191 j / 0.220 B / 0.264 b
0.243 d / 0.261 c
0.199 h / 0.209 h
0.181 j / 0.210 B
6 / Low
High / 0.262 d
0.249 e / 0.205 h
0.198 i / 0.181 k
0.164 m / 0.233 e
0.215 f / 0.189 i
0.181 j / 0.156 m
0.140 o
4000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.232 f
0.218 g / 0.185 k
0.181 k / 0.148 o
0.131 q / 0.170 C / 0.196 h
0.189 i / 0.109 r
0.154 m / 0.127 p
0.113 r / 0.140 C
6 / Low
High / 0.185 k
0.185 k / 0.168 m
0.161 n / 0.121 r
0.108 s / 0.175 k
0.162 l / 0.131 p
0.120 q / 0.103 s
0.092 t
6000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.161 n
0.138 p / 0.148 o
0.121 r / 0.101 t
0.084 u / 0.110 D / 0.147 n
0.131 p / 0.103 s
0.092 t / 0.079 u
0.072 v / 0.090 D
6 / Low
High / 0.121 r
0.111 s / 0.101 t
0.081 u / 0.071 v
0.057 w / 0.116 q
0.114 q / 0.082 u
0.072 v / 0.064 w
0.054 x
Specific effect of: / 0.208 A / 0.176 B / 0.138 C / 0.190 A / 0.151 B / 0.125 C
a-Soil type
b-SAR / SAR 3 = 0.182A / SAR 6 = 0.152 B / SAR 3 = 0.159 A / SAR 6 = 0.133 B
c-Cl:SO4 / Low = 0.173A / High = 0.160 B / Low = 0.152 A / High = 0.140 B
Treatments / Leaf phosphorus (%)of Pyrus communis rootstock
2001 / 2002
Conc. / SAR / Cl: SO4 / Soil types / Mean* / Soil types / Mean*
Clay / Calcareous / Clay / Clay / Calcareous / Clay
0 / 0.270 a / 0.229 b / 0.192 d / 0.230 A / 0.259 a / 0.199 d / 0.179 e / 0.212 A
2000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.261 a
0.253 a / 0.222 b
0.215 c / 0.187 d
0.181 d / 0.211 B / 0.246 a
0.238 b / 0.189 d
0.183 e / 0.170 e
0.164 f / 0.190 B
6 / Low
High / 0.240 b
0.232 b / 0.204 c
0.197 c / 0.171 e
0.165 e / 0.225 b
0.217 c / 0.173 e
0.167 f / 0.155 f
0.150 g
4000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.208 c
0.199 c / 0.176 d
0.169 e / 0.148 f
0.142 f / 0.165 C / 0.194 d
0.186 d / 0.149 g
0.143 g / 0.134 h
0.129 h / 0.147 C
6 / Low
High / 0.186 d
0.178 d / 0.158 e
0.151 e / 0.133 f
0.127 g / 0.173 e
0.166 f / 0.133 h
0.127 h / 0.120 i
0.114 i
6000ppm / 3 / Low
High / 0.146 f
0.137 f / 0.124 g
0.117 g / 0.104 h
0.098 h / 0.112 D / 0.134 h
0.127 h / 0.103 j
0.098 j / 0.093 j
0.087 k / 0.099 D
6 / Low
High / 0.124 g
0.116 g / 0.105 h
0.098 h / 0.088 h
0.083 i / 0.114 i
0.106 i / 0.088 k
0.082 k / 0.079 k
0.073 k
Specific effect of: / 0.196 A / 0.167 B / 0.14 C / 0.183 A / 0.141 B / 0.127 C
a-Soil type
b-SAR / SAR 3 = 0.172 A / SAR 6 = 0.153 B / SAR 3 = 0.154 A / SAR 6 = 0.137 B
c-Cl:SO4 / Low = 0.166 A / High = 0.159 B / Low = 0.148 A / High = 0.142 B
* refers to specific effect of saline concentration.