This article was downloaded by: [Anadolu University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 07:12Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints Contributing toCitrus Decline in Marathwada Region, IndiaA. K. Srivastava a & Shyam Singh aa National Research Centre for Citrus , Nagpur, Maharashtra, IndiaPublished online: 31 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: A. K. Srivastava & Shyam Singh (2005) Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints Contributing to CitrusDecline in Marathwada Region, India, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35:17-18, 2537-2550

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/LCSS-200030359

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS

Vol. 35, Nos. 17 & 18, pp. 2537–2550, 2004

Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints

Contributing to Citrus Decline in Marathwada

Region, India

A. K. Srivastava* and Shyam Singh

National Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

ABSTRACT

Citrus decline, a common problem in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis

Osbeck) growing areas of Marathwada region of Maharashtra,

India, was investigated from the standpoint of soil fertility and plant

nutritional constraints during 1999–2002. To diagnose the nutri-

tional constraints, optimum soil-available nutrients, and leaf nutrient

concentration in relation to fruit yield were determined through

multivariate quadratic regression analysis. Soil factors (viz.,

exchangeable Ca2þ and Naþ) and suboptimum levels of nitrogen

(N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe),

*Correspondence: A. K. Srivastava, National Research Centre for Citrus,

Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 010, India; Fax: 91-712-2500813; E-mail: citrus9_ngp

@sancharnet.in.

2537

DOI: 10.1081/LCSS-200030359 0010-3624 (Print); 1532-2416 (Online)

Copyright & 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), and boron (B) both in soil and leaf

proved to be important contributory factors toward citrus decline.

The soil and plant factors that were important are (in the order of

their increasing importance): leaf Mn< soil pH< leaf Zn<leaf Fe< available P< soil CaCO3< available Mn< available Cu<available K< leaf P< soil EC< available Zn< leaf Cu< leaf

K< available Fe< leaf K< available N. These observations suggest

a definite role of different soil fertility and plant nutritional factors

causing citrus decline.

Key Words: Citrus decline; Sweet orange; Marathwada; Soil

factors; Plant nutrition.

INTRODUCTION

Citrus decline commonly occurs in citrus belts all over the world.The causal factors vary. Nutritional disorders may be one contributoryfactor to citrus decline.[1–5] Earlier studies in central India indicated thatlarge-scale multinutrient deficiencies were responsible for the decline incitrus orchard productivity.[6,7] Previous studies[8,9] established theoptimum norms for Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) as atest crop by using multivariate quadratic correlation and regressionanalysis.

Sweet oranges [Citrus sinensis Osbeck (C. sinensis)], when used incombination with rough lemon [Citrus jambhiri Lush (C. jambhiri)]rootstock, may be more prone to various nutritional disorders thanmandarins [Citrus reticulata Blanco (C. reticulata)], especially formicronutrients. Studies addressing the contribution of different soilfertility and plant nutritional factors, are comparatively limited. Absenceof a suitable soil and plant test norm in relation to optimum fruit yieldfurther jeopardizes the timely diagnosis of causes for malnutrition ofpremier C. sinensis cultivar Mosambi in India. Such conditions are highlyconducive to gradual improvisation in orchard efficiency, especially withadvancing orchard age.[10,11] In addition, there is no sound statisticalbasis of delineating various causal factors of citrus decline. In light ofthese limitations, the objectives of the present investigation were asfollows: (i) to establish optimum values of soil fertility and leaf nutrientcomposition in relation to fruit yield; (ii) to find soil-plant nutritionalfactors influencing fruit yield; and (iii) to diagnose soil-plant nutritionaldisorders contributing citrus decline by using C. sinensis as a test cropin the hot, subhumid, tropical climate of the Marathwada region,Maharashtra, India.

2538 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Details

Two sets of sweet orange orchards were identified. The first set

consisted of 60 orchards (orchard age, 10–15 yr) representing four

major districts viz., Aurangabad (Pimpliraja, Jadgaon, and Pachod),

Jalna (Waigaon, Chikangaon, Hastapokhri, Aalamgaon, Nagjari,

Mathpimpalgaon, Parner, Kawadgaon, Golapangari, Bharadkheda,

and Wakolini), Nanded (Asolla, Sinnapur, Jhari, Parwa, and Jam), and

Parbhani (Limbgaon and Dhanora) of the Marathwada region, India

(Fig. 1). The second set consisted of 22 sweet orange orchards comprising

17 orchards (orchard age 10–12 yr) from the Pimpliraja and Adgaon

areas of Aurangabad and 5 orchards from the Narayangaon, Rajani,

Ner, and Karjat areas of Jalna, representing central India. Yield data

were recorded for three years (1999–2000, 2000–2001, and 2001–2002) to

Figure 1. Geographical distribution of locations where soil-leaf samples were

collected.

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2539

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

address the possible year-to-year variation in fruit yield. Out of theseorchards, 10 healthy and 10 declining trees in each orchard, were furtherearmarked to study the role of various soil-plant nutritional factorstowards sweet orange decline.

These orchards were established with a rootstock as C. jambhiri andscion as C. sinensis. The soils were rich in smectite and were identified asTypic Ustorthent, Lithic Ustorthent, Typic Ustochrept, VerticUstochrept, and Typic Haplustert/Pellustert, depending upon thephysiographical features. Climatically, these areas belong to hot,subhumid tropical region with mean annual temperature of 28–36�Cand rainfall of 700–800mm. Fertilizer schedules adopted in theseorchards were computed on a nutrient basis to supply 500–800 g nitrogen(N), 200–400 g phosphate (P), 400–600 g potassium (K), 80–100 g iron(Fe), 50–100 g manganese (Mn), 150–300 g zinc (Zn), and 50–100 g boron(B) tree�1 yr�1 with a plant-to-plant distance of 5–6m apart and aplanting density of 277–400 plants ha�1.

Five- to seven-month-old leaf samples from nonfruiting terminals at1.5 to 1.8m from the ground, covering a minimum of 2% trees in anorchard, were collected.[12,13] Likewise, soil samples at 0–20 cm depth andbelow the perimeter of trees from each of the selected orchard.[14] Soil andleaf samples were collected separately from under the healthy as well asdeclining trees (showing leaf-chlorosis–like symptoms on >20% canopyarea). Similarly, fruit yield of healthy and declining trees was recordedindividually.

Analytical Procedures

Soil samples were air-dried, ground, and passed through 2-mm sieve,and were subjected to analysis of free CaCO3 content.[15] Soil fertilityanalyses consisted of alkaline KMNO4 distillation for available N,[16]

NaHCO3 (pH 8.3) extractable P as Olsen-P, 1N neutral NH4OAc-K,[17]

and 1N (pH 7.3), DTPA-CaCl2 (Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid)extractable Fe, Mn, copper (Cu), and Zn.[18] Soils were extracted with hotwater and ammonium oxalate (pH 3.3) for hot water soluble B andavailable molybdenum (Mo), respectively.[15]

Leaf samples were thoroughly washed,[19] ground by using a Wileygrinding machine to obtain homogenous samples and were subsequentlydigested in a tri-acid mixture of HClO4:HNO3:H2SO4 in 2:5:1.[15]

Nitrogen values were obtained by autonitrogen analyzer (Model-PerkinElmer-2410, Connecticut, USA), P by using the vanadomolybdo-phosphoric acid method, K by flame photometrically, and micronutrients

2540 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

(Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn) by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (ModelGBC-908, Australia). Other micronutrients in soil and plant extracts suchas B and Mo, were determined by using an inductively coupled plasmaspectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer ICP-40, Connecticut, USA).

Statistical Analysis

Optimum soil fertility and leaf nutrient concentration in relation tofruit yield was determined by multivariate quadratic correlation andregression analysis ðY ¼ aþ b1x1 þ b2x2 � � � bnXn þ b1x

21 þ b2x

22 � � � bnX

2n ,

where a is intercept, b1� bn, regression coefficient; X1�Xn, independentvariables; and Y, as dependent variable for yield). Data from all the fourdistricts were pooled for all the four districts considering the similarity ingrowing conditions and cultural practices. Linear coefficient of correla-tion (r¼ �xy/�x� �y, where �x and �y are the standard deviations ofx and y, respectively, and �xy is the covariance) and regression analysis(Y¼ aþ bx, where y, a, b, and x stand for dependent variable, intercept,regression coefficient, and independent variable, respectively) were usedto test the relationship between total/available nutrients and soilCaCO3.

[20] Stepdown partial correlation and regression analysis wereundertaken to find out relative importance of various soil–plantnutritional factors.[21]

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Optimum Limit of Soil Available Nutrients

Calcareous black soils were potentially rich in total supply of all themicronutrients. Total Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn varied from 4562.6 to7644.2mg kg�1, 1492.6 to 2486.0mg kg�1, 38.8 to 91.0mg kg�1, and 38.8to 77.2mg kg�1, respectively, in relation to CaCO3, varying between1.9% and 21.3% (data not shown). Soil CaCO3 was positively correlatedwith total Fe (r¼ 0.631), Mn (r¼ 0.482), Cu (r¼ 0.412), and Zn(r¼ 0.768). Total micronutrient concentration increased (mg kg�1) atthe rate of 158.8 Fe, 51.2 Mn, 2.69 Cu, and 1.98 Zn, per unit increase inCaCO3. Regression equations are: total Fe¼ 3892.28þ 158.80 CaCO3,total Mn¼ 1532.12þ 51.20 CaCO3, total Cu¼ 42.20þ 2.69 CaCO3, andtotal Zn¼ 25.81þ 1.98 CaCO3. These observations suggested that, in duecourse of time, under the influence of farmyard manure (a major sourceof nutrient supply uniformly applied to all the orchards), the tappedmicronutrients are released into the available pool of nutrients.

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2541

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

Mean values of different nutrients viz., available N, P, K, Ca,

magnesium (Mg), Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Mo, and B showed a large variation in

relation to fruit yield of 11.2–40.9 tons ha�1 (Table 1). Multivariate

quadratic correlation and regression analysis revealed optimum values

(mg kg�1) available were N 142.2, P 11.4, K 210.3, Ca 0.12, Mg 105.8, Fe

13.2, Mn 14.6, Cu 2.16, Zn 0.98, Mo 0.08, and B 0.48 for an optimum

yield of 24.10 tons ha�1. Based on above optimum values of various

nutrients, a suboptimum level of different nutrients in test orchards (%)

was observed as available N 50.0, P 48.3, K 15.0, Ca 23.3, Mg 6.7, Fe

83.3, Mn 75.0, Cu 15.0, Zn 85.0, B 40.0, and Mo 8.3. Earlier studies,[1]

with Nagpur mandarin (C. reticulata) as the test crop, suggested that the

optimum limit of soil fertility available was N 118.8, P 10.1, K 241.2, Fe

14.8, Mn 13.4, Cu 1.3, and Zn 1.2mg kg�1 at 0–15 cm soil depth under

the subhumid tropical climate of central India. These differences in

optimum values are indicative of differential nutritional requirement

according to the cultivar.

Table 1. Soil available nutrients in 60 sweet orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck)

orchards located in four citrus-growing areas of central India during the 1999–

2002 growing seasons.

Nutrient

Mean (�SEM)

(mgkg�1)

Optimal SuboptimalCorrelation

with yield(%)

N 149.0� 4.2 50.0 50.0 0.972b

P 12.2� 12.2 51.7 48.3 0.273a

K 268.4� 5.6 85.0 15.0 0.129a

Ca* 0.13� 0.04 76.7 23.3 0.182

Mg 118.7� 2.4 93.3 6.7 0.204

Fe 9.3� 0.60 16.7 83.3 0.515b

Mn 16.1� 1.4 25.0 75.0 0.432b

Cu 3.3� 0.52 85.0 15.0 0.116a

Zn 0.71� 0.09 15.0 85.0 0.669b

Mo 0.12� 0.02 60.0 8.3 0.189

B 0.47� 0.04 91.7 40.0 0.416b

Yield (tons ha�1) 17.6� 1.8 — — —

�SEM¼ standard error of the mean ððffiffiffiffiffi

x2p

� ðxÞ2=nÞ=nÞ, where, x and n stand for

mean and no. observations, respectively.a5% level of significance.b1% level of significance.*%.

2542 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

Optimum Limit of Leaf Nutrients

Leaf nutrients viz., N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Mo, and B, on

mean basis, likewise showed a large variation in relation to fruit yield

(Table 2). Optimum value of various leaf nutrients was observed as N

2.36%, P 0.13%, K 1.62%, Ca 2.65%, Mg 0.32%, Fe 132.1, Mn 112.4,

Cu 6.8, Zn 24.9, B 29.4, and Mo 0.34 ppm in relation to fruit yield of

22.42 tons ha�1.Based on suggested the optimum limit of leaf nutrients, the

percentage of orchards testing at the suboptimum level of different

nutrients were observed as N 96.7, P 45.0, K 66.7, Ca 68.3, Mg 51.7, Fe

68.3, Mn 58.3, Cu 11.7, Zn 86.7, B 33.3, and Mo 15.0%. While the other

percentage of orchards having optimum concentration of different

nutrients were 3.3 N, 55.0 P, 33.3 K, 31.7 Ca, 48.3 Mg, 31.7 Fe,

41.7 Mn, 98.3 Cu, 13.3 Zn, 76.7 B, and 85.0 Mo. Earlier studies

by Srivastava and Singh[14] showed optimum levels as 2.24–2.40 N,

0.07–0.10 P, 1.18–1.56% K, 110.2–132.1 Fe, 29.3–43.4 Mn, 8.3–14.1 Cu,

Table 2. Leaf nutrients in 60 sweet orange (Citrus Sinensis Osbeck) orchards

located in four citrus-growing areas of central India during the 1999–2002

growing seasons.

Nutrient Mean (� SEM) Optimal Suboptimal

Correlation

with yield

Nc 1.92� 0.10 2.36 96.7 0.949b

Pc 0.13� 0.02 0.13 45.0 0.629b

Kc 1.51� 0.16 1.62 66.7 0.576b

Cac 2.29� 0.08 2.65 68.3 0.110

Mgc 0.48� 0.04 0.32 51.7 0.149

Fed 77.4� 2.8 132.1 68.3 0.282a

Mnd 105.5� 3.2 112.4 58.3 0.682b

Cud 11.9� 1.1 6.8 11.7 0.187

Znd 20.2� 0.78 24.9 86.7 0.524b

Mod 0.75� 0.08 0.34 33.3 0.170

Bd 32.7� 1.9 29.4 15.0 0.432b

Yield (tons ha�1) 17.6� 1.8 — — —

�SEM¼ standard error of the mean ððffiffiffiffiffi

x2p

� ðxÞ2=nÞ=nÞ, where x and n stand for

mean and no.of observations, respectively.a5% level of significance.b1% level of significance.c%.dppm.

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2543

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

and 18.6–29.8 ppm Zn vis-a-vis optimum productivity of 10–12 tons ha�1

for Nagpur mandarin (C. reticulata) under similar growing conditions.

Soil Fertility-Plant Nutrition Variables

and Fruit Yield

Resultant effect of interaction between soil fertility and plant

nutrition is a complex phenomenon. Various soil–leaf nutrient variables

eliminated at each step of stepdown partial regression analysis were

observed in the order of their increasing influence on fruit yield

as follows: leaf Mn< soil pH< leaf Zn< leaf Fe< available P< soil

CaCO3< available Mn available Cu< available K< leaf P< Soil

EC< available Zn< leaf Cu< leaf K< available Fe< leaf K<available N.

Stepdown regression analysis carried out between fruit yield and

soil available nutrients separately showed the relative importance of

various variables in the increasing order of available K< available

Mn< available P< available Cu< available Fe< available Zn< avail-

able N. Percentage contribution of these nutrients to fruit yield was

observed to be 5.7 K, 8.2 Mn, 4.8 P, 3.4 Cu, 12.7 Fe, 12.1 Zn, and 48.0 N.

Likewise, relative importance of various leaf nutrients in increasing order

was observed as Mn<P<Cu<Fe<Zn<K<N in the order of their

increasing importance influencing fruit yield. Percentage contribution of

various leaf nutrients toward fruit yield was observed as 9.0 Mn, 8.2 P,

3.6 Cu, 8.4 Fe, 11.4 Zn, 15.0 K, and 44.2 N.

Interaction of Soil Fertility vs. Plant Nutrition

Correlation of various soil properties vs. leaf nutrient levels showed

significant correlation of fruit yield with reference to available N, P, Fe,

Mn, Zn, B, and soil CaCO3 (Table 1). While, leaf nutrients viz., N, P, K,

Fe, Mn, Zn, and B correlated significantly with fruit yield (Table 2).

Interaction between available nutrients and their concentration in leaf

proved to be significant with reference to nutrients viz., N (r¼ 0.951,

P¼ 0.01), P (r¼ 0.304, P¼ 0.05), Zn (r¼ 0.398, P¼ 0.01), and B

(r¼ 0.462, P¼ 0.01). While, the relations for other nutrients, such as P,

K, Fe, and Mn, were nonsignificant.

2544 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

Sweet Orange Decline vis-a-vis Soil Properties

Comparison of soil pH under healthy vs. declining trees and acrosslocations showed no significant difference, since it varied narrowly from7.8 to 8.2 (Table 3). Evaluation of Balady lime, Cleopatra mandarin, andsour orange seedlings at various soil pH showed a reduction in growth by9.8, 25.4, and 40.1% at soil pH 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0, respectively, in Egypt.[22]

Electrical conductivity under both healthy (0.12–0.20 dSm�1) anddeclining (0.12–0.26 dSm�1) trees likewise showed no significant differ-ence and were well within critical limit of 0.9–1.7 dSm�1 as suggested byBielorai et al.[4]

Lime-induced chlorosis is known as one of the oldest forms of declinedue to immobilization of available micronutrients like Fe, Mn, and Zn.Although CaCO3- rich nodules are common in smectite-dominantVertisols of India,[1] no significant difference was observed with respectto CaCO3 under healthy trees (28.0–142.0 g kg�1) vs. declining trees(22.0–112.0 g kg�1). Soil CaCO3 content under healthy trees registeredcomparatively higher values over declining trees (Table 3). Suchobservations need to be viewed from the angle of strong association ofCaCO3 nodules with micronutrient-containing minerals, and, in duecourse of time, these trapped nutrients were released and were added tothe available pool of nutrients.[1,8]

Cation:anion ratio and water soluble nutrients in soil were proposedto be promising approaches to explain citrus blight syndrome.[2] Of thedifferent soil properties studied in relation to sweet orange decline, thedifference between healthy and declining trees was significant withreference to exchangeable Ca2þ and exchangeable Naþ (Table 3), but notfor Mg2þ and Kþ. Mean exchangeable Ca2þ was observed to be higher(33.8mg 100 g�1) under healthy trees compared with declining trees

Table 3. Physical and chemical properties of soil in 22 sweet orange (Citrus

sinensis Osbeck) orchards located in two citrus growing areas of central India

during the 1999–2002 growing seasons.

Tree pH

EC CaCO3

Exchangeable cations (me 100 g�1)

(dSm�1) (%) Ca2þ Mg2þ Kþ Naþ

Healthy 8.0 0.16 7.3 33.8 12.6 1.2 8.0

Diseased 7.9 0.18 7.3 29.2 13.6 1.3 6.4

Significance NS NS NS 3.1 NS NS 0.98

EC¼ electrical conductivity

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2545

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

(29.2me 100 g�1). Wutscher[23,24] reported a higher double acidextractable Ca (272–1249mgkg�1) and soil pH (5.8–6.2) under blightedtrees than Ca (112–532mgkg�1) and pH (4.8–5.7) under healthy treesrepresenting six diverse citrus belts of Florida in the United States. Meanexchangeable Kþ was significantly lower under declining trees(6.4me 100 g�1) compared with healthy trees (8.0me 100 g�1). Theseobservations suggest that citrus decline involves a disequilibrium amongvarious exchangeable cations in the soil. Comparison of soil propertiesunder etiolated and normal citrus trees showed significantly higher pH,exchangeable Ca2þ, and Mg2þ (7.7, 146.1mg kg�1, and 110.9mg kg�1,respectively) under etiolated trees than corresponding values (5.3,514.1mg kg�1, and 82.9mg kg�1) under the soils of normal trees.[25]

Sweet Orange Decline vis-a-vis Available Nutrients

Available N, P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Zn, and B were significantly higher inhealthy trees compared with declining trees (Table 4). Zinc deficiency haslong been associated with citrus decline.[26–28] Elevated Zn accumulationtook place prior to visual symptoms in 58% of the trees developingblight, and 32% of these trees, Zn-accumulation took place three yearsbefore the appearance of Zn deficiency symptoms.

Sweet Orange Decline vis-a-vis

Leaf Nutrient Status

Leaf nutrient status of whether healthy or declining trees proved tobe more closely related to the fruit yield variation than soil availablenutrients. Similar observations were also obtained with regard to

Table 4. Soil fertility status in healthy vs. declining trees of 22 sweet orange

(Citrus sinensis Osbeck) orchards located in two citrus growing areas of central

India during the 1999–2002 growing seasons.

Tree

N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B Mo

Available nutrients (mg kg�1)

Healthy 126.0 13.2 173.9 0.19 112.7 10.6 8.2 2.8 22.6 0.41 0.11

Diseased 110.3 10.5 151.0 0.12 108.5 7.4 5.9 2.8 16.1 0.28 0.09

Significance 10.2 2.4 10.2 0.04 NS 1.1 0.90 NS 5.2 0.04 NS

2546 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

impact of leaf nutrients status on sweet orange decline. Nutrients like N,P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, and B showed a significant variation whentheir nutrient status in healthy vs. declining trees were compared(Table 5). Macronutrients such as N, P, and Ca were higher in healthytrees than declining trees. Leaf K content followed the reverse trend,being significantly higher in declining trees (1.73%) compared withhealthy trees (1.58%). Leaf micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, and B) were,likewise, significantly higher in healthy trees than declining trees.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides various soil fertility constraints, changes in the compositionof exchangeable phase of the soil were worth considering in the cause ofcitrus decline in central India. However, rating various nutritionalconstraints in the order of their increasing or decreasing influence on fruityield would further help to evolve a more purposeful nutrient manage-ment program and, thereby, counter citrus decline more effectively thanstraight nutrient constraint diagnosis, while adding sustainability inquality citrus production. To address this objective, nutrients like N, P,K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and B are of major significance, which should be a part ofthe fertilization program on a regular basis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The financial support received from Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch, New Delhi is duly acknowledged by the authors.

Table 5. Leaf nutrient status of healthy vs. declining trees of 22 sweet orange

(Citrus sinensis Osbeck) orchards located in two citrus growing areas of central

India during the 1999–2002 growing seasons.

Tree

N P K Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B Mo

Total nutrients (mg kg�1) (ppm)

Healthy 2.01 0.13 1.58 2.59 0.32 95.6 63.5 5.9 22.1 29.8 0.34

Diseased 1.83 0.09 1.73 2.21 0.30 75.4 53.7 5.5 17.7 21.2 0.30

Significance 0.11 0.03 0.24 0.38 NS 10.1 9.8 NS 4.1 2.8 NS

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2547

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

REFERENCES

1. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S. Soil analysis based diagnostic norms for

Indian citrus cultivar. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2002,

33 (11&12), 1689–1706.2. Wutscher, H.K.; Hardesty, C. Seasonal levels of water extractable

cations and anions in soil under blight affected and healthy citrus

trees. Commun. Soil Sci. Pl. Anal. 1981, 14, 719–731.3. Walker, R.R.; Torofalvy, E.; Grieve, A.M. Water relations and ion

concentrations of leaves on salt stressed citrus plants. Australian J.

Plant Physiol. 1983, 10, 265–277.4. Bielorai, S.; Dasberg, S.; Erner, Y.; Brum, M. The effect of saline

irrigation water on Shamouti orange production. Proc. Sixth Int.

Citrus Congr. (Tel Aviv, Israel) 1988, 2, 707–715.5. Rossetti, V.; Berretta, M.J.G.; Julia, M. Declinio of Citrus Trees in

Brazil: A Review, Proceedings of the International Citrus

Symposium, Guanzhaou, China, Nov. 5–8, 1990; 687–692.6. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S.; Huchche, A.D.; Ram, L. Yield

based leaf and soil test interpretations for Nagpur mandarin in

Central India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32 (3&4),

585–599.7. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S. Development of optimum soil property

in relation to fruit yield and quality of Citrus reticulata Blanco cv.

Nagpur mandarin. Trop. Agri. Trinidad 2001, 78 (1), 1–8.8. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S. Soil properties influencing yield and

quality of Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco). J. Indian

Soc. Soil. Sci. 2001, 49 (1), 226–229.9. Alvarez, M.; Correa, A. The influence of morphological and

nutritional characteristics on citrus production as part of the

study made at the Ceiba Del Agua Enterprises. Proc. Int. Soc.

Citriculture (Tokyo, Japan) 1981, 2, 561–563.10. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S. Soil Suitability: Crop Response

Relationship in Nagpur Mandarin, Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Citriculture (Hi-tech Citrus Management), Nagpur,

Maharashtra, India, Nov. 23–27, 1999; Ghosh, S.P., Singh, S., Eds.;

1999; 374–388.11. Huchche, A.D.; Srivastava, A.K.; Lallan, Ram. Nagpur Mandarin

Orchard Efficiency in Central India, Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Citriculture (Hi-tech Citrus Management), Nagpur,

Maharashtra, India, Nov. 23–27, 1999 Ghosh, S.P., Singh, S., Eds.;

1999; 547–550.

2548 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

12. Srivastava, A.K.; Ram, L.; Huchche, A.D.; Kohli, R.R.; Dass, H.C.Standardisation of leaf sampling technique in Nagpur mandarinunder sub-humid tropical climate. Indian J. Hortic. 1994, 51 (1),32–36.

13. Srivastava, A.K.; Kohli, R.R.; Dass, H.C.; Huchche, A.D.; Ram, L.Evaluation of the nutritional status of Nagpur mandarin (Citrusreticulata Blanco) by foliar sampling. Trop. Agric. Trinidad. 1999,76 (2), 93–98.

14. Srivastava, A.K.; Singh, S. Fertilizer Use Efficiency in Citrus; Ext.Bull. No. 1; National Research Centre for Citrus: Nagpur, India,1998; 1–64.

15. Chapman, H.D.; Pratt, P.F.Methods of Analysis for Soil, Plants andWaters; University of California, Division of Agricultural Science:Berkeley, CA, 1961; 78–90, 145–149.

16. Subbiah, B.V.; Asiza, G.L. A rapid procedure for determination ofavailable nitrogen in soils. Current Sci. 1956, 25, 259.

17. Tandon, H.L.S., Ed. Methods of Analysis of Soils, Plants,Water andFertilizers; Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organisation:New Delhi, India, 1998; 42–44.

18. Lindsay, W.L.; Norvell, W.A. Development of DTPA test for zinc,iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428.

19. Chapman, H.D. Suggested foliar sampling and handling techniquesfor determining the nutrient status of some field, horticultural andplantation crops. Indian J. Hortic. 1964, 21, 97–119.

20. Rangaswamy, R.A. Text Book of Agricultural Statistics; WileyEastern Limited: New Delhi, India, 1995; 142–201.

21. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Correlation and Regression Analysis:Statastical Procedures for Agricultural Research; John Wiley andSons: New York, 1984; 357–424.

22. Shawky, I.; Desouky, I.; El-Tonui, A.; Mohamed, M.A. Effect ofpH on the growth and mineral content of some rootstock seedlings.Egyptian J. Hort. 1980, 7 (1), 19–31.

23. Wutscher, H.K. Nutritional and soil factors affecting trees withcitrus blight. Proc. Sixth Int. Citrus Congr. 1988, 2, 1013–1022.

24. Wutscher, H.K. Soil pH and extractable elements under blightaffected and healthy citrus on six Florida soils. J. Am. Soc. Horti.Sci. 1989, 114 (4), 611–614.

25. Chen, Q.M.; Zeng, K.Y. Hongguang, the best strain of NanfengGuangju. China Citrus 1991, 20 (3), 17.

26. Wutscher, H.K.; Smith, P.F.; Bistline, F. Zinc accumulation intrunk wood, water extractable ions in the soil and development ofsymptoms of citrus blight. Citrus Veg. Mag. 1982, 63, 22, 24, 26, 28.

Contribution of Soil and Plant Nutritional Constraints 2549

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ORDER REPRINTS

27. Wutscher, H.K.; Smith, P.F.; Bistline, F. Zinc Accumulation in

trunk and development of visual symptoms of citrus blight.

HortScience 1982, 17, 676–677.28. Wutscher, H.K.; Del Valle, N.; De Bernard, A. Citrus blight and

wood pH in Cuba and Florida. HortScience 1983, 18, 486–488.

2550 Srivastava and Singh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Request Permission/Order Reprints

Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081CSS200030359

Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!

Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using copyrighted content.

All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/ Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.

The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted, reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website User Agreement for more details.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ana

dolu

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:12

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14