i

EVALUATION OF SOIL AND PLANT NUTRIENT STATUS IN RELATION TO POMEGRANATE PRODUCTIVITY

ARCHANA M.

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY

COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT- 587 103 UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES

BAGALKOT - 587 104

SEPTEMBER, 2015

ii

EVALUATION OF SOIL AND PLANT NUTRIENT STATUS IN RELATION TO POMEGRANATE PRODUCTIVITY

Thesis submitted to the University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of

Master of Science (Horticulture) In

Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry

By ARCHANA M.

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY

COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT- 587 103 UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES

BAGALKOT - 587 104

SEPTEMBER, 2015

iii

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY

COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES,

BAGALKOT - 587104

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that, the thesis entitled “EVALUATION OF SOIL AND

PLANT NUTRIENT STATUS IN RELATION TO POMEGRANATE

PRODUCTIVITY” submitted by Miss. Archana, M. ID.NO. UHS13PGM369 for

the award of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (HORTICULTURE) in SOIL

SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY of the University of

Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, is a record of research work carried out by her

during the period of her study in this university under my guidance and supervision.

The data of this thesis has not previously formed the basis for the award of any

degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or other similar titles.

BAGALKOT Dr. SUMA R. SEPTEMBER, 2015 Major Advisor

Approved by: Chairman:

___________________________ Dr. SUMA R. Members: 1. ________________________ Dr. ASHOK, S. ALUR

2. __________________________

Dr. M. S. NAGARAJA

3. ___________________________

Dr. KULAPATI HIPPARAGI

4. __________________________ Dr. MANJUNATH G.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With regardful memories …

The beatitude and euphoria that accompanies successful completion of any task would be

incomplete without expression of simple certitude to the people who made it possible to achieve the

goal by their encouraging guidance and proper steering. It is still great at this juncture to recall all

the faces and spirit in the form of parents, teachers, and friends, near and dear ones.

I cannot but consider myself luck to have worked under the guidance of knowledge

hungry, excellence pursuing and ever helpful personality Dr. Suma, R. Assistant professor,

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Horticulture, Bagalkot and

Chairman of my advisory committee.. She was a source of inspiration to me throughout the period

of investigation. I am grateful to her for her abysmal guidance, constant fomenting, punctilious

and impeccable advice. Above all her affectionate way of dealing with the thing throughout the

course of my studies, this helped to me consummate the research work and with a grand success.

I take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude towards her. I had really a great pleasure

and privilege to be associated with her during this course of my study.

I sincerely owe my deep sense of gratitude to members of my advisory committee

Dr. M. S. Nagaraja, Associate professor and Head, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural

Chemistry, COH, Bagalkot, Dr. Ashok S Alur, Head, PPMC, COH, Bagalkot, Dr. Kulapati

Hipparagi , Professor and Head, Department of Fruit Science , COH, Bagalkot, Dr. Manjunath,

G. Assistant professor , Department of Plant Pathology, DOR, COH, Bagalkot for their constant

help, valuable suggestions during the investigation, sensible criticism in animating and

ameliorating its manuscript and valuable counsel during the period of study and I owe them a lot

for this small venture of mine.

On my personal note, it is an immense pleasure to express my sincere gratitude and

heartfelt respect to the blessings of my parents Maregouda, M and Girija, M, my uncle

Vishwanath, sisters Ashwini, Vani, Sunita and brothers Harish, Sunil, Chandru and Shashi for

their boundless love, needy inspiration, unshakable confidence with me, without whose affection I

would not have come up to this level.

I have been highly fortunate in having many friends, junior and seniors in whose company

I never felt the burden of my studies. Their helping hand was evident at every stage of tension,

anxiety and achievement. To mention the names of the petals which together as a flower and

scented my life with elegant fragrance, I must begin with senior friends, Pradnya, Kalpana,

v

Parvathi, friends like Vidya, Karan and Ravi, Y with whom my memories never have an end.

Anita, Supriya, Rekha, Prathibha, Kavya, Vinuthan, Ramu, Sharan, Lakshmi, Mrunalini, Rani,

Shruti, Manya and junior friends like Priyanka, Shreekanth, Vinod, Vinay, Greeshma, Divya,

Chandana and Bhavya all my UG and PG friends for their affection, help and suggestions on

various occasions during my study.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all my teachers, Dr. Prasanna, Mr. Viresh,

Mr. Tanvir, Dr. Rajashekar, Dr. Rudresh and Dr. Shankar Meti for their valuable guidance

during my postgraduate degree programme which generated great interest in the subject matter.

I owe thanks from the depth of my heart to our department lab assistants Murali,

Parappa and Arjun for their kind practical help, spending valuable time during the course of my

experiment of practicals.

I am thankful to Mr. Arjun and Mr. Kalmesh of “Arjun Computers, Dharwad” for their co-operation during the preparation of this manuscript.

One last word; since it is practically impossible to list all the names who contributed to

my work, it seems proper to issue a thanks for those who helped me directly or indirectly during the

course my study. Omission of any names does not mean the lack of gratitude. Ending is inevitable

for all good and it is time to end the acknowledgement.

BAGALKOT

SEPTEMBER, 2015 (ARCHANA M.)

vi

Affectionately Dedicated to

my Beloved Parents and

my Guide

vii

CONTENTS

Chapter No. Chapter Particulars Page

No.

CERTIFICATE iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF PLATES xii

LIST OF APPENDICES xiii

1. INTRODUCTION 1-2

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3-17

2.1 Effect of major nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient content and productivity

3

2.2 Effect of secondary nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient content and productivity

7

2.3 Effect of micro nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient content and productivity

9

2.4 Effect of electrochemical properties on pomegranate 13

2.5 Effect of nutrients on other subtropical fruit crops nutrient content and productivity

15

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS 18-30

3.1 Location 18

3.2 Variety 18

3.3 Season 18

3.4 Climatic conditions 21

3.5 Collection of data 21

3.6 Nutrient management practices 21

3.7 Crop yield and yield parameters 23

3.8 Soil analysis 24

3.9 Plant analysis 26

3.10 Statistical analysis 28 Contd.....

viii

Chapter No. Chapter Particulars Page

No.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 31-60

4.1 General description of pomegranate orchards 31

4.2 Major nutrient inputs recorded in different categories of pomegranate orchards

31

4.3 Soil properties of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

33

4.4 Pomegranate leaf nutrient concentration at different stages of crop growth

41

4.5 Pomegranate yield and yield parameters under different categories of orchards

46

4.6 Association between pomegranate yield, soil and leaf nutrient content at various crop growth stages

49

5. DISCUSSION 61-81

5.1 Electrochemical properties of soils in pomegranate orchards

61

5.2 Major nutrient status in pomegranate orchards 62

5.3 Secondary nutrient status in pomegranate orchards 65

5.4 Micro nutrient status in pomegranate orchards 67

5.5 Pomegranate yield parameters 70

5.6 Pomegranate yield and its association with major nutrient inputs

71

5.7 Pomegranate yield and its association with soil nutrient parameters

71

5.8 Pomegranate yield and its association with leaf nutrient parameters

73

6. SUMMARY 82-84

REFERENCES 85-94

APPENDICES 95-96

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

No.

1. Details of pomegranate orchards selected for the study 19

2. Temperature, relative humidity and rainfall recorded during the crop growth period(From June 14 to May 15)

22

3. Total amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium applied through inorganic fertilizers in different categories pomegranate orchards

32

4. Soil pH, electrical conductivity and organic carbon in different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

34

5. Major nutrient (N, P&K) content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

36

6. Secondary nutrient (Ca, Mg & S) content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

37

7. Zinc, Iron and Manganese content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

39

8. Copper and Boron content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

40

9. Major nutrient content (N, P &K) in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages.

42

10. Secondary nutrient content (Ca, Mg & S) in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

44

11. Zinc, Iron and Manganese content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

45

12. Copper and Boron content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

47

13. Pomegranate fruit yield among different categories of orchards 48

14. Fruit weight and number of fruits per plant among different categories of pomegranate orchards

50

Contd.....

x

Table No. Title Page

No.

15. Correlation index (r) among pomegranate yield and soil nutrient content at various crop growth stages

54

16. Regression model iterated for selected soil nutrient content with pomegranate yield at different growth stages

56

17. Correlation index (r) among pomegranate yield and leaf nutrient content at various crop growth stages

57

18. Regression model iterated for selected leaf nutrient content with pomegranate yield at different growth stages

59

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

No.

1. Map depicting the study area in Bagalkot taluka, Karnataka 20

2. Relationship between pomegranate yield and major nutrient application in different categories of orchards

72

3. Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and soil nitrogen (kg ha-1) content

74

4. Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and soil potassium content (kg ha-1)

75

5. Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf nitrogen (%) content

77

6. Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf sulphur (%) content

79

7. Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf boron (%) content

81

xii

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No. Title Page

No.

1. Pomegranate orchard of Allabhash Bilagi, Kaladagi of age 3 years with yield of 21.5 t ha-1

51

2. Pomegranate orchards of Ramanagouda Thimmanagouda Patil , Chikkasamshi of age 3.5 year with yield of 20 t ha-1

51

3. Pomegranate orchard of Yenkappa Holeppa Tottad, Govinakoppa with 4 year with yield of 11.5 t ha-1

52

4. Pomegranate orchard of Ishwar Panishetti , Kaladagi of 3.5 year age with yield of 11 ha-1

52

5. Pomegranate orchard of Tajuddin, Kaladagi of 5 year age with yield of 8.75 tha-1

53

6. Pomegranate orchard of Govindappa Lakshmappa Kolur, Sokanadagi of 3 year village with yield of 9 t ha-1

53

xiii

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix No. Title Page

No.

I. Details of the contact farmers selected for the study 95

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is one of the important fruit crops in arid

and semi-arid regions. The fruit is popular for its nutrition, unique flavour, taste and

health promoting characters. In India, it is extensively grown in Maharashtra,

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and it is an upcoming crop in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu,

Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan. In Karnataka, pomegranate is cultivated on an

area of 15,500 ha with an annual production of 1.53 lakh tons and productivity of

10 MT ha-1 (Anon, 2013a), in districts of Koppal, Bijapur, Bagalkot, Chitradurga,

Belgaum, Dharwad and Bellary. Pomegranate has wide adaptability and requires

relatively low cost for its cultivation with drought tolerance and good economic

returns with potential of export attributes. Hence, its area is expanding in recent years.

In this context, it is crucial to evolve strategies to sustain pomegranate productivity.

Amongst the cultural practices, nutrient application and its availability, uptake and

assimilation by pomegranate plays a key role in influencing productivity. Hence, the

present research programme was planned to evaluate the relation between the soil and

plant nutrient status on pomegranate productivity.

Mineral nutrition plays an important role in influencing the yield and quality

of pomegranate. It is fact that an intensive cropping, involving bahar treatment

without proper nutrient management is the cause for deteriorating plant health.

Further, continuous use of high analytical fertilizers with less organics has increased

the incidence of nutrient deficiencies. For achieving higher and sustainable

pomegranate productivity, balanced nutrient application is most important, which

emphasize recommendation of nutrients based on soil and plant testing. Soil testing

provides valuable information on nutrient availability and helps in ensuring balanced

application of nutrients to meet crop requirements (Dev, 1998). Whilst, plant tissue

testing provides information on plant assimilated nutrient content, which is crucial for

evolving nutrient application strategies to obtain higher pomegranate yield and quality

(Hamouda et al., 2015). To achieve this, basic information on relationship between

nutrient status and pomegranate production is obligatory.

The soils under pomegranate cultivation are dynamic in nature and vary in

their properties due to wide range of geographical and climatic conditions. Farmers

usually follow distinct management practices and regularly manipulate cultivation

2

practices. Hence, wide variation is noticed with nutrient availability and uptake by

crop plants. This emphasizes need for understanding region specific nutrient

management practices and its effect on nutrient availability and uptake by

pomegranate plants and ultimately its effect on their productivity; hence, the present

study.

It has been observed under field conditions that pomegranate plants raised

under poor soils produced lower yields, poor quality fruits and were more susceptible

to the pests and disease (Yenjeerappa, 2009). Further, poor plant vigour found

associated to plant mortality particularly in critical stages viz., flowering and fruit

setting, which is linked to nutrition (Patil and Patil 1982). Hence, the present

investigation is planned to study the nutritional pattern in the soils and plant tissues of

pomegranate, to evolve best possible nutrient management strategies for sustaining

pomegranate productivity.

Productive pomegranate cultivation depends on nutrient supply and

assimilation. It has been proved in several crops that soil and plant nutritional

diagnosis is the basis for maximizing the yield and quality. This will simultaneously

identify nutrient imbalances, deficiencies or excesses in both soil and crop, which

helps in working out the strategies for optimizing nutrient application for higher yield

and quality (Yao et al., 2009). It has been observed that imbalance in mineral

nutrition predisposes and make pomegranate plants susceptible to many biotic and

abiotic stresses. Further, pomegranate orchards raised in dry and barren lands, that

have poor soil fertility status, are failing to withstand against these stresses. Hence,

there is need for a systematic study on the availability of nutrients in soil, its uptake

by plants and ultimately its effect on pomegranate productivity. This association

between nutritional status and pomegranate productivity helps in affirming site

specific recommendations.

In this context, the present investigation was carried out to achieve the

following objectives,

1. To assess the soil nutrient status of pomegranate orchards.

2. To assess the leaf nutrient status of pomegranate plants.

3. To study the soil and leaf nutritional status in relation to pomegranate

productivity.

3

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Pomegranate (Punica granatum L) is one of the oldest known edible fruits,

capable of growing in different agro climatic conditions ranging from the tropical to

subtropical. Pomegranate has been of recent interest for its nutritional, chemical and

antioxidant characteristics. It is highly suitable for growing under arid and semiarid

regions due to its versatile adaptability.

Amongst the cultural practices, nutrient application and its availability, uptake

and assimilation by pomegranate play key role in influencing productivity. Thus, a

brief review of the available literature pertaining to present study to understand the

effect of plant nutrients on pomegranate productivity has been presented in this

chapter.

2.1 Effect of major nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient content

and productivity

Nitrogen (N) is major constituent of many compounds of great physiological

importance in metabolism, such as amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids, porphyrins,

enzymes and coenzymes (Agarwala and Sharma, 1976). It also helps to increase the

shoot and leaf development that is ultimately capable of manufacturing greater

amount of food materials and the same when translocated into the fruit bearing areas

leads to enhancement in weight and size of the fruits (Sharma et al., 2014).

Juice percentage of the fruit was increased due to nitrogen application because better

hydration in the tree and the fruits became more succulence, or juicy. Nitrogen also

stimulates the functioning of a number of enzymes in the physiological process which

probably caused an increase in the T.S.S content of the fruit (Childer, 1966).

Phosphorus (P) is a component of phospholipids and nucleic acids, the latter

combines with proteins and result in the formation of nucleo proteins which are

important constituents of the nuclei of the cells. The chain reactions in these

components cause improvement in quality of fruits (Sharma et al., 2014).

4

Potassium (K) plays a key regulatory role in many physiological process of

plant growth. Marschner (1986) reported that the potassium is an essential element

that helps in fruit enlargement and cell turgidity by reducing carbohydrate contents.

Also it increases plant tolerance to various environmental stresses such as drought,

low temperature, or salinity, all of which trigger cellular oxidative stress (Hodges

et al., 2001). Optimum levels of potassium enhance the phloem loading, transport and

unloading of sucrose (Lester et al., 2005). It also helps in improving the yield and

quality that could be attributed to its effects on carbohydrate influx and synthesis of

plant growth regulators in growing fruits (Khayyat et al., 2012).

A survey was conducted in pomegranate orchards in Bijapur district of

northern Karnataka using Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS)

indicated that, the optimum ranges nutrient in leaf (8th leaf pair from tip collected in

the month of August) were: N- 0.91 to 1.66%; P 0.12 to 0.18% and K0.61 to 1.59%.

The optimum ranges in soil were: pH 8.1 to 8.6; available N 44 to 103 mg kg- 1;

available P 10 to 20 mg kg- 1; and available K 73 to 115 mg kg- 1. A yield level of

pomegranate ranging from 15.5 to 18.8 t ha- 1 was recorded for the optimum ranges of

nutrients indicated above (Raghupathi and Bhargava, 1998b).

Raghupathi and Bhargava (1998b) diagnosed the nutrient imbalance in the

pomegranate orchards of Bijapur and reported lower mean N (1.28%), Ca (1.46%)

and Mg (0.33%) content in the leaves of low yield pomegranate orchards (<15 t ha-1)

compared to high yielding population (1.59, 1.65 and 0.37% respectively), but the K

content (1.25%) was higher. Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System

(DRIS) indicated ideal ratios of N/Mg, P/Mg, P/N and Ca/Mg as 4.64, 0.52, 0.12 and

5.15 respectively, further indicated nitrogen and zinc as the most common yield

limiting nutrients in pomegranate.

Gimenez et al. (2000) indicated optimum leaf N, P, K content as 1.40-1.70,

0.10-1.15 and 0.55-0.69 per cent, respectively for Mollar pomegranate variety and

1.50-1.90, 0.09-0.12 and 0.9-1.00 per cent for Israeli variety

Saraf et al. (2001) studied fourteen treatments of different sources alone.

The results revealed that maximum plant height (194.53cm) was obtained under the

treatment poultry manure at 5 kg plant-1 followed by FYM at 10 kg plant-1

5

(180.00cm), bone meal 1kg + N:P:K plant-1 (178.48g) and FYM 10 kg + N:P:K plant-

1.On the basis of the experimental finding it was concluded that application of 10 kg

FYM plant-1 and bone meal 1 kg with N:P:K are the effective treatments to boost up

the all growth of pomegranate plants.

Sheikh and Rao (2005) observed that, the application N @ 400 g plant-1 and

K2O @ 200 g plant-1 in four splits at monthly interval recorded the highest number of

fruits (235.4), fruit yield (76.04 kg plant-1), fruit weight (333.25g), with higher

accumulation of N (1.96%) and K (1.54%) in leaves, that resulted in improved fruit

quality parameters.

Sheikh (2006) reported the leaf nutrient standards for pomegranate and

Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS) and indicated the

optimum level of N, P and K in pomegranate leaf as 0.91-1.66, 0.19-0.21 and 1.60-

2.26 per cent, respectively. Similarly if the N, P, K levels less than 0.54, 0.09 and 0.2

per cent, respectively were considered as deficient and greater than 2.04, 0.21 and

2.26 per cent respectively as excess.

Kumar et al. (2009) studied the macro nutrient accumulation in pomegranate

leaves of cv. Ganesh grown in Rajasthan. The N, P and K content in pomegranate

leaves ranged from 0.929-1.028, 0.184-0.276 and 1.392 to 1.584 per cent respectively.

High yielding orchards accumulated relatively higher amount of macronutrients as

compared to orchards having low fruit weight.

Rao and Subramanyam (2009) studied the effect of nitrogen fertigation on

growth and yield of pomegranate var. Mridula under low rainfall condition.

The highest plant height (2.0 m), stem girth (43.5 cm), no. of fruits (45.1) and fruit

yield (11.6 kg) per tree were recorded in 50% recommended dose of nitrogen at 500 g

plant-1 fortnight intervals followed by 50% recommended dose of nitrogen at monthly

intervals.

Khayyat et al. (2012) revealed that, spraying of potassium nitrate @ 500 mg

L-1 at fruit formation stage significantly improved fruit weight (244g), fruit volume

(278.5 cm3) and fruit quality viz., TSS (14.46 Brix), Titrable acidity (1.01 mg citric

acid 100-1 mL juice) and Vitamin C (8.81mg ascorbic acid 100-1 mL juice).

6

Three years consecutive study of data indicated that application of FYM 20 kg

along with N400P100K300 g year-1plant-1 resulted in the highest yield (8.1 kg plant-1)

with foliar N/K ratio of 1.3.This also enhanced fruit weight (200 g), TSS (14.8Bº),

reducing sugar (12.0%) and vitamin C (12.5mg 100 ml-1). (Ghosh et al., 2012)

Kashyap et al. (2012) showed soil application of 500:250:500 N: P2O5:K2Og

plant-1 along with 15 kg of FYM plant-1 resulted in maximum fruit set (28.85 and

27.37%), fruit yield (14.94 and 14.91kg) in successive two year experiment. Where as

maximum fruit weight of 458.3 and 458.1 g was obtained with 750:250:500 N:

P2O5:K2O g plant-1 in both years. However, fruit quality parameters viz., TSS, total

sugars, reducing and non-reducing sugars reduced at higher dose of N and K (750 and

600 g plant -1 respectively).

Mir et al. (2013) studied the effects of bio-organics and chemical fertilizers on

nutrient availability and biological properties of pomegranate orchard soil.

He observed that conjoint application of bio-fertilizers 80 g tree -1, vermicompost 20

kg tree-1, FYM 20 kg tree-1, green manure (GM) sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) and

recommended dose of fertilizers (400:200:200 N:P2O5:K2O g plant-1) resulted in

significantly maximum porosity (60.27%), water holding capacity (WHC) (60.31%),

bulk density (0.97%), particle density (2.25%), organic carbon (1.90%), soil pH

(6.89),soil N (405.56 kg ha-1), P (22.03 kg ha-1), K (419.00 kg ha-1).

Ray et al. (2014) reported that, the application of N @ 300 g plant-1 year-1

along with neem cake (1kg plant-1) significantly enhanced fruit yield (6.94 kg

plant-1), fruit weight (239.83g fruit-1), TSS (12.29ºBx), total sugar (10.74%) and

vitamin-C (21.93 mg 100-1 mL of juice) content of fruit compared to N @ 400 g

plant-1 year-1 with or without neem cake.

Ahmed et al. (2014) found the highest fruit yield (54.7kg/), fruit weight

(521.1g) and juice (44%) with the application of 400 g N + 100 g P2O5 + 100 g K2O

tree-1 year-1. The C/N in the shoot, percentages of P, K and Mg, chlorophylls a & b,

total chlorophylls, total carotenoids, fruit setting, yield and fruit quality were

increased both P & K levels from 50 to 100 g / tree. They suggested 300:100:100 N:

P2O5:K2O as best nutrition package for wonderful pomegranate grown under Minia

region.

7

Sarafi et al. (2014) studied the effect of calcium and boron application on

performance pomegranate under sodicity stress. They reported P accumulation ranged

between 0.06 and 0.14 per cent in leaves and maximum was observed in plants treat

with B 100µM. Sodicity stress reduced the Ca concentration in leaves to per cent.

Similarly maximum leaf K concentration (1.87%) was observed in control plants.

Sodicity stress significantly reduced the P concentration in leaves to 1.13 per cent.

2.2 Effect of secondary nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient

content and productivity

Calcium and magnesium plays important roles in strengthening cell wall

through building both calcium and magnesium pectates in the middle lamella as well

as stabilization of membrane systems and strengthening the bonds between epidermal

and other fruit cells. Such two macronutrients also are responsible for reducing the

abscission zone formation among fruits and branches as well as regulating the

mechanisms of photosynthesis and proteins (Poovaiah 1986, Tony and John, 1994 and

Jackman and Stanley, 1995).The beneficial effect of Ca and Mg in promoting the

biosynthesis of sugars and plant pigments as well as checking the uptake of water was

accompanied with enhancing maturity and improving fruit quality (Yagodin, 1990

and Mengel et al., 2001).

Raghupathi and Bhargava (1998a) in their study of nutritional survey of

pomegranate orchards reported that mean Ca content of 1.46% (with a range of

0.87-2.77%) in low yielding and 1.65 (range; 0.60-3.02%) in high yielding orchards.

Similarly the Mg and S content was 0.33 (range; 0.18-0.68%) and 0.15 (range;

0.07-0.37%) per cent in low yielding and 0.37 (range; 0.16-0.71%) and 0.15 (range;

0.04-0.70%) in high yielding orchards, respectively.

Raghupati and Bhargava (1998b) indicated the optimum level of secondary

nutrient concentration in pomegranate leaves using DRIS analysis. They indicated per

cent nutrient range of 0.77-2.02, 0.16-0.42 and 0.16-0.26 as optimum concentration

for Ca, Mg and S.

8

Gimenez et al. (2000) studied the correlation between leaf analysis with

pomegranate harvest and reported optimum nutrient range for two pomegranate

varieties Mollar and Israeli. Ca Content in high yielding category of Mollar variety

ranged from 0.66-1.50 per cent. While, low yielding ranged from 0.85- 0.97 per cent.

Similarly for Israeli variety it ranged from 2.14-2.45 and 1.97-2.73 in high and low

yielding categories, respectively. Optimum Mg content was 0.30- 0.36 per cent for

Mollar and 0.30-0.38 per cent for Israeli variety.

Hepaskoey et al. (2000) studied the leaf nutrient content of six pomegranate

varieties susceptible to fruit splitting and reported that the Ca content was 1.484-1.781

per cent in resistant, 1.288-2.069 in intermediate and 1.269-1.425 in susceptible

variety at early stage of crop growth. That increased with advance of crop growth

however, lowest Ca content observed in susceptible variety. Mg content was low in

susceptible (0.6-0.65%) variety compared to intermediate (0.65-1.05%) and resistant

(0.75-1.05%) varieties.

Aseri et al. (2008) demonstrated enhanced uptake of Ca and Mg with

inoculation of A. brasilense (1.68 and 0.46 mg kg-1 respectively) A. chrococcum +

G. mosseae (1.69 and 0.49 mg kg-1 respectively) as compared to control (1.18 and

0.26 mg kg-1 respectively). This further resulted in increased fruit yield of

pomegranate recording 32.2 and 33.5 kg plant-1 with respective biofertilizer

inoculation.

Kumar et al. (2009) studied the soil nutrient content on yield of pomegranate

cv. Ganesh in Bikaner district of Rajasthan. The lowest sulfur content in soil was 9.0

kg ha-1 which recorded 0.195 per cent in leaf and lowest fruit weight of 88.33g.

Pomegranate recording the highest fruit weight of 243.3 g showed significantly higher

leaf S (0.203%) and Soil S (16.00 kg ha-1).

Sheikh and Manjula (2012) recorded the highest yield (34.05 kg plant-1) in the

trees sprayed with 0.2 per cent boric acid, followed by per cent calcium chloride spray

32.08 kg plant-1as against control treatment 20 kg plant-1.

Khalil and Aly (2013) reported that spraying of CaCl2 (3%Ca) at second and

eighth week after full bloom significantly enhanced fruit yield (23.57 and 26.11 kg

tree-1) and fruit weight (310 and 311g) in 2011 and 2012 as compared to control and

spraying of growth regulator (Paclobutrazol, GA and NAA).

9

Prakash and Balakrishna (2014) evaluated the influence of post bloom spray

of CaCl2 @ one per cent and 2 per cent on pomegranate cv. Bhagwa. Fruit weight

(289g), fruit number (57) and fruit yield (13.35 kg plant-1) increased significantly with

spraying of CaCl2 @ per cent as compare to control. Further, increasing spray

concentration to 2 per cent marginally enhanced yield and yield parameters.

Sarafi et al. (2014) studied the effect of calcium and boron application on

performance pomegranate under sodicity stress. They reported Ca accumulation

ranging from 0.93- 4.00 per cent in leaves and maximum was observed in plants

treated with 10 mµ CaCl2 + 100 mµ B. Sodicity stress significantly reduced the Ca

concentration in leaves to 0.98-0.93 per cent. Similarly Mg concentration ranged

between 0.36 and 0.54 per cent in leaves. Maximum was observed in control plants.

Sodicity stress significantly reduced the Mg concentration in leaves to 0.36 per cent.

Though salinity affected negatively but its effect was not significant.

Ahmed et al. (2014) reported that spraying of calcium chloride at 2 per cent

alone or in combination with salicylic acid (100ppm) enhanced pomegranate yield

and reduced per cent fruit splitting as compared to control. The concentration of N, P,

K, Ca and Mg were increased significantly in pomegranate leaves recording 1.83, 0.2,

1.5, 2.33 and 0.6 per cent respectively with CaCl2 (2%) spraying as compared to

control (1.55, 0.09, 1.15, 1.70 and 0.35 respectively).

2.3 Effect of micro nutrients on pomegranate leaf nutrient content

and productivity

Zinc plays many important regulatory roles in plant development through

activating different enzymes, the biosynthesis of organic foods, cell division and cell

enlargement (Yagodin, 1990). Zinc is responsible for strengthening cell wall and

reducing the formation of the abscission zone (Mengel et al., 2001). The beneficial

effects of zinc on controlling water absorption and nutrient uptake as well as

enhancing the biosynthesis of the natural hormone namely IAA.The promoting effect

of Zn on the biosynthesis of organic foods especially carbohydrates could result in

promoting quality of the fruits.

10

Iron is essential for the activity of several enzymatic systems and plant

components such as Catalase, Cytochrome, Ferrodoxin, Frichrome, Hematin, Hem

and Cytochrome oxidase. In addition, it seems iron be involved in nucleic acid

metabolism in the chloroplast. (Bopath and Srivastava, 1982)

Manganese also is a heavy metal micronutrient, the functions of which are

fairly known. It is involved in the oxygen-evolving step of photosynthesis and

membrane function, as well as serving as an important activator of numerous enzymes

in the cell (Wiedenhoeft, 2006).

Copper it functions as a catalyst in photosynthesis and respiration. It is a

constituent of several enzyme systems involved in building and converting amino

acids to proteins. Copper is important in carbohydrate and protein metabolism and

formation of lignin in plant cell walls which contributes to the structural strength of

the cells and the plant. Copper also affects the flavor, the storage ability and the sugar

content of fruits.

Boron plays important role in the extension of plant cell walls through

building of pectins as well as enhancing IAA and water uptake (Yagodin, 1990).

In addition, using boron achieved many merits such as building and translocation of

carbohydrates and promoting photosynthesis and pollen germination and cell division

(Kaneko et al., 1997).

Bambal et al. (1991) studied the effect of foliar application of some

micronutrients such as Fe, B, Mn and Zn. The Mn and Zn increased yield of the plant,

whereas B reduced the percentage of cracked fruits. The micronutrients when sprayed

in combinations were found promising and the highest number of fruits was obtained

in Fe + Zn combination.

Raghupathi and Bhargava (1998a) reported mean Fe content of 103 ppm

(range; 25-172 ppm) in low yielding and 97 (range; 12-198ppm) in high yielding

pomegranate orchards. Similarly the Mn and Zn content was 53 (range: 12-99) and

35 (range; 15-97 ppm) in low yielding and 47 (range; 12-96 ppm) and 37 (range:

12-84ppm) in high yielding orchards respectively.

11

Raghupathi and Bhargava (1998b) reported optimum micronutirient

concentration in pomegranate leaves using DRIS concept, indicating 71-214, 29-89,

14-72 and 29-72 mg kg-1 as optimum range for Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu respectively.

Gimenez et al. (2000) studied the micronutrient content in pomegranate leaf of

different yield categories and found positive correlation (+ 0.3597) between iron

content and yield. The effects of other micronutrients were insignificant. Low

yielding orchards recorded relatively high mean B (17.8 ppm) and Zn (4.83 ppm) as

compared to high yielding orchards recorded relatively high mean B (12.67 ppm and

3.42 ppm respectively). While, Mn (35.8ppm) and Cu (16.42 ppm) content was

relatively higher than low yielding orchards (34.3 and 15.3 ppm respectively).

The increased pomegranate fruit yield with inoculation of A. chroococcum

(32.2 kg plant-1) and A. chroococcum + G. mosseae (33.5 kg plant-1) compared to

control (21.5 kg plant-1) was attributed to enhanced micro nutrient uptake of

Cu (0.032 and 0.37ppm), Zn (0.17 ppm), Mn (0.25 and 0.29 ppm) and Fe (0.26 and

0.3 ppm) compared to control (Aseri et al., 2008)

Tehranifar and Tabar (2009) showed enhanced fruit weight with spraying of

K @ 3g L-1 (301.5 g) alone or in combination with B @ 1.5g L-1 (279 g) compared to

control (231.83g). The leaf K content (g kg-1) and B content (mg kg-1) was increased

to 3.40 and 18.1 respectively in treatment receiving K + B @ 3g L-1.

Kumar et al. (2009) studied the Zinc availability in pomegranate cv Ganesh

growing orchards of Rajasthan and was ranged from 0.21 to 0.49 ppm. Similarly its

accumulation in pomegranate leaves ranged from 17 to 23 ppm and found positively

correlated with fruit weight and quality.

Khorsandi et al. (2009) studied response of four commercial pomegranate

cultivars to foliar Zn fertilization at a rate of 0.4%. Zinc fertilization did not

significantly increase total yield, but significantly reduce unmarketable yield and

enhanced fruit juice dry weight, density and concentration of solid materials and

minerals. Spraying of Zn significantly enhanced the Zn (73-110 ppm) concentration in

pomegranate leaves which was < 20 ppm in control.

12

Micronutrients play key role determining pomegranate productivity and

quality. Hasani et al. (2012) reported increased fruit set, yield as weight and number

of fruits tree-1, as well as, fruit characteristics (TSS, flesh thickness, weight of 100

arils, leaf area) with foliar application of Zn and Mn. Highest accumulation of N

(2.09%), P (0.23%) and K (1.00%) in pomegranate leaves were found with spraying

of 0.3% MnSO4 + 0.3%ZnSO4. The variation in accumulation of Fe and Cu was

insignificant. However, maximum accumulation of 139.5 ppm Zn and 169 ppm Mn

was found with spraying of 0.6%ZnSO4 and 0.6% MnSO4 alone, respectively.

Mir et al. (2013) reported enhanced accumulation of Fe (197.27 ppm),

Cu (13.62 ppm), Zn (58.36 ppm) and Mn (197.53 ppm) with combined use of

vermicompost (20 kg) + biofertilizers (80 g) + FYM (20 kg) + green manure +

recommended dose of fertilizers (400: 200:200 N:P2O5:K2O RDF) to RDF alone

(175.15, 10.76, 40.67 and 171.87 ppm Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn respectively.

Khalil and Aly (2013) reported significant increase in pomegranate yielding

with spraying of 0.3% Boric acid (28.11kg) alone and combination of CaCl2 (3%) +

Boric acid (0.3%) + ZnSO4 (0.3%) (27.11kg) as compared to control (21.75 kg).

Sarafi et al. (2014) emphasised the effect of micronutrient accumulation in

pomegranate leaves on application of Ca and B under salinity stress. The Mn and Zn

content were slightly enhanced with B (100µM L-1) and Ca (10µM L-1) application

even under Sodicity (Na 80 mµ) stress (16 and 18 ppm respectively) as compared to

control (11 and 13 ppm respectively). Maximum B accumulation (57 ppm) was

observed with application of B (100µM L-1) alone, that decreased significantly to

28ppm with Sodicity stress. Similarly Fe content decreased from 143 ppm in control

to 50 ppm under Sodicity stress.

Spraying of MgSO4 (0.5%), chelated Zn (0.5%) and boric acid (0.05%) alone

or in combination with salicylic acid (100 ppm) enhanced fruit yield by reducing per

cent fruit splitting. The accumulation of N, P, K, Ca and Mg were also enhanced

recording 1.66, 0.14, 1.29, 1.84 and 0.66 per cent respectively with MgSO4 (0.5%)

1.71, 0.16, 1.36. 1.91 and 0.50 per cent respectively with ZnSO4 (0.5%) and 1.76,

0.17, 1.42, 1.97 and 0.55 per cent respectively with Boric acid (0.05%) sprays

(Ahmed et al., 2014).

13

2.4 Effect of electro chemical properties on pomegranate

Plant height, number of leaves, stem diameter, plant spread. Leaf area, plant

mortality, leaf chlorophyll and leaf and root N, P, K, Ca. Mg, Na, Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu

contents were determined over 19 months in plants growing in pots and in soil with

ESP of 1.6 to 50. All indices studied decreased with increasing soil ESP except for

plant mortality and leaf and root Na contents, which increased, however, Cu level was

unaffected (Patil and Patil, 1982).

Raghupati and Bhargava (1998b) studied the soil nutrient status of

pomegranate orchards in Bijapur district of Karnataka. The soils were alkaline in

relation recording plant from 7.51 to 8.78 with EC 0.31 (range; 0.11-1.2

dS m-1).Available N was low (241.92 kg ha-1) while, P (53.76 kg ha-1) and K (528 kg

ha-1) were higher in availability. They observed 1.92, 5.87 and 1.19 mg kg-1 mean Fe,

Mn and Zn respectively.

Balamohan et al. (2001) conducted an experiment with four pomegranate

cultivars to study their early vigor in sodic soils of Tamil Nadu and found that Zn, K

and P contents were highest in Mridula. YCD 1 had the highest N, Fe and Cu

contents.

Idate et al. (2001) observed that cv. Mridula in medium black soils under drip

irrigation system, showed an increasing trend in the yield from 50 to 75% RRF

(recommended rate of fertilizers). The results further indicated that the application of

75% RRF with 20% wetted area recorded the maximum yield (19.35 kg plant-1)

without affecting fruit quality.

Yenjeerappa (2009) reported application of multi nutrient mixture (Zn, Mg, B,

Fe, Cu, Mn, Mo and S) @ 100 g plant-1 to soil and 1 per cent foliar application

(4 sprays) was effective in increasing the yield 15.99 kg plant-1 and 8.00 tones ha-1

and also reducing per cent disease incidence of pomegranate bacterial blight.

Awasti and Singh (2010) conducted survey to study the soil nutrient status of

pomegranate orchards and low with per cent OC (0.25± 0.22) and available

phosphorus (10.67±1.51kg ha-1).The total exchangeable cation content of these soils

was 11.1 (±2.9) c mol (p +) /kg of which exchangeable K occupied 1.1± 0.8, Na – 0.7

(±0.9), Ca-4.6 (±0.3) and Mg-2.0 (±0.8).

14

Singh and Kumar (2012) reported the soil fertility status of pomegranate

growing area in Rajasthan. The organic carbon (0.1 -0.21%) and nitrogen (77-102 kg

ha-1) content were low, phosphorus (10.39-25.37 kg ha-1) and potassium (116.33-

142.2 kg ha-1) were medium in nature. The sulphur content ranged from 9-18ppm and

the EC (0.057-0.303 dS m-1) was below the critical level. However, no specific

relation was observed between soil nutrient values to pomegranate yield.

Devarpanah et al. (2013) reported that foliar application of 2000 mg L-1 of

Fe-EDDH significantly increased yield of pomegranate, fruit Number, size, total

soluble solids (TSS), total soluble solids to titratable acidity (TSS/TA) and dry weight

compared to control.

Eiada and Mustafa, 2013, obtained results showed that 60 mg L-1 manganese

with 3% zinc recorded high fruit set (49.34 and 50.55%) and the highest fruit weight

(188.88 and 187.97 g), yield (26.83kg and 26.77kg) and even shown less splitting of

fruit (15.67% and 15.60%), TSS (13.81and 13.77) and total acidity (1.37and 1.38) of

pomegranate.

Mir et al. (2013) reported significant increase in OC content of soil receiving

the application of vermicompost, FYM, green manure, bio fertilizer along with RDF

recording 1.9 per cent compared to RDF (1.75%) alone. Further this treatment slightly

enhance soil pH (6.88) but the EC was stable (0.31dS m-1). The reduced bulk density,

increased porosity and water holding capacity and organic carbon content facilitate

higher microbial load and enhance nutrient uptake by pomegranate plants.

Chauhan (2013) observed that the increase in water salinity (ECiw) level

decreased the plant height and stem girth. The yield decreased to 34 per cent when

ECiw 12dS /m compared to 8 dS/m. The fruit yield was 10.7% higher in drip system

over surface system.

Chauhan (2013) recorded severe reduction in fruit yield of pomegranate grown

in drip irrigation contain 12dS /m EC (11.6 kg plant-1) compared to normal water

(18.8 kg plant-1). The soil EC increased from 4.5 to 12.9 dS m-1 when irrigated with

12 dS m-1 EC water at 0.5 ET level.

15

Many factors influence the accumulation of nutrients in pomegranate viz.,

cultivar, soil, water management and nutrient application. Karimi and Hasanpour

(2014) indicated that the salinity and drought affected the concentration and

distribution of sodium (Na +), potassium (K +), chloride (Cl- ), calcium (Ca2 +),

magnesium (Mg2 +) and phosphorus (P +) in pomegranate leaves. Mineral

concentrations of sodium (Na +), chloride (Cl-) and potassium (K +) in shoots and roots

were increased with increasing salinity. Drought increased the concentration of Cl- ,

Na + and Mg2 + in the shoot. Among the cultivars used, ‘Rabab,’ cultivar accumulated

higher Na + and Cl- while, the ‘Shishegap’ cultivar had the most absorption of K +,

showing higher tolerance to salinity.

Inoculation of efficient strain of pencillium resulted in increased availability of

P (33.38ppm) and K (276.95 ppm) in soil that enhanced nutrient uptake by 47.47 and

63.44 per cent respectively. This resulted in improved growth, leaf area index and

photosynthetic rate of pomegranate plants. (Maity et al., 2006).

2.5 Effect of nutrients on other subtropical fruit crops nutrient

content and productivity

Tarai and Ghosh 2005 observed the foliar nitrogen content was significantly

increased with the application of 200 g N plant-1 (1.65%) but was decreased with the

increase in nitrogen level and foliar P (0.16%) and K (0.90%) values were also the

highest in the plants fertilized with 200 g N plant-1 and this treatment significantly

produced the highest fruit yield (10.7 kg plant-1) and the control plants showed lowest

N, P and K values in the leaves (1.40, 0.14 and 0.80 per cent, respectively) and yield

5.6kg plant-1.

Pujar et al. (2010) reported the nutritional survey of grape orchards of Bijapur

taluk. The soil pH ranged from 7.2 - 8.8, electrical conductivity 0.18 to 1.75 dS m-1

below the critical range and the organic carbon content was 0.23 to 1.01 kg ha-1. The

available nitrogen was in lower range (45 to 337.5 kg ha-1), available phosphorous

content ranged from 15.00 to 48.9 kg ha-1 which was medium in range, potassium

ranged from 115 to 592 kg ha-1 which was high range in all the grape fields.

16

A survey was conducted for the nutritional status of aonla orchards in the state

of Uttar Pradesh lying in Central Indo-Gangetic plains. Preliminary diagnosis and

recommendation integrated system (DRIS) Nutrient sufficiency ranges for aonla

derived from DRIS norms were 1.30– 1.64, 0.054–0.092, 0.40–0.64% and 32.4–45.9

ppm for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and zinc (Zn), respectively.

Maximum fruit yield of 40.2 kg plant- 1 was recorded for the plants at the age group of

10–15 years and lowest yield was recorded 28.3 kg plant- 1 in the age of above

20 years. (Nayak et al, 2011)

Panigrahi and Srivastava (2011) studied integrated use of water and nutrients

through drip irrigation in Nagpur Mandarin. The highest fruit yield (16.03 t.ha-1) with

superior quality fruits (41.8% juice content, 10.20 Brix TSS and 0.82% acidity) was

recorded under I2F3 (irrigation at 75% and 75% of RDF: 600 g N + 100 g P2O5 + 200

g K2O). Leaf nutrients (N, P, K, Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn) analysis indicated that I2F3

(irrigation at 75% and 75% of RDF: 600 g N + 100 g P2O5 + 200 g K2O) registered

significantly higher leaf-N (2.15%) and K (1.87%), whereas I3F3 produced higher P

(0.11%) and Fe (113.99 ppm) the application of optimum quantity of water and

fertilizers (I2F3) through drip irrigation saved 50% and 25% of water and fertilizers,

respectively, besides producing 60% higher fruit yield with better quality fruits.

Zatloukalova et al. (2011) studied foliar application of Mg, S, Mn, Zn (5%)

:11.8 kg Mg. ha-1 (T 3) and Mg. S (5%) :14.8 kg Mg ha-1 (T4) significantly increases

Mg and S content to 0.42–0.49% and 0.34–0.40%, respectively compared to control

and Mg, S :20 kg Mg ha-1 (T2) 0.29–0.30% and 0.22%, respectively. The content of

Zn (173–380 mg.kg- 1) and Mn (90–551 mg.kg- 1) increased significantly in (T3)

compared to the other treatments. Grape yield was highest 8.16 (t.ha- 1) with the

treatment (T2) Mg, S: 20 kg Mg ha-1.

A survey was conducted in sapota orchards in Raichur, Dharwad and Belgaum

district of northern Karnataka. The optimum ranges nutrient in leaf (N 1.51 to 2.09%)

(P 0.06 to 0.15%) (K 0.83 to 1.44%) (Ca 1.36 to 2.34%) (Mg 0.54 to 0.68%) and

(S 0.48 to 0.80%). micronutrients, optimum Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and B concentrations

ranged from 109 to 206, 49 to 99, 13.3 to 21.9, 3.76 to 9.10 and 34.8 to 66.8 mg kg-1,

respectively for sapota cv. Kalipatti. (Savita et al., 2013)

17

Baviskar et al. (2014) revealed Conjoint application of 112:750:375 g NPK +

15 kg vermicornpost + 250 g Azotobacter + 250 g PSB plant:') showed maximum

nitrogen (1.73%) phosphorus (0.095%) and potassium (0.99%) content and the

highest number of fruits plant-1 (1569.33) and also fruit yield (197.53kg plant-1)

of sapota.

18

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the soil and plant

nutrient status of pomegranate orchard in relation to pomegranate productivity.

The details of materials used and methods adopted during the course of study are

described below.

3.1 Location

A survey was conducted in and around Kaladagi village – a renowned area for

pomegranate cultivation in Bagalkot district, Karnataka state for selection of

pomegranate orchards. Thirty pomegranate orchards of 3-7 years old cultivated with

Bhagwa variety were randomly selected from five villages viz., Govinakoppa,

Kaladagi, Sokanadagi, Chikkasamshi and Hiresamshi for the present study.

The details of study location is described in Table 1 and depicted in Fig. 1.

3.2 Variety

The pomegranate orchards with Bhagawa variety were selected to study the

soil and leaf nutrient status in relation to pomegranate productivity. Bhagawa variety

is known by different names viz., Kesar, Shendari, Ashtagandha, Mastani, Jai

Maharastra and Red Diana. The fruits are bigger in size, red in colour and matures

in180-190 days after blooming (anthesis). It has thick skin hence, posses better

keeping quality and suitable for long distance transport. The arils are sweet, bold and

glossy with attractive cherry red.

3.3 Season

The hasta bahar season was selected to conduct the present investigation.

In this season, the pomegranate plants are defoliated during first –second week of

August by spraying ethrel (2-2.5ml/litre) after the rest period. Then, light pruning and

irrigations are practiced, followed by application of manures and fertilizers during

August month. The new flushes appear on the tree between 8-12 days and profuse

flowering are observed during first to second week of September (Annexure-I).

19

Table 1: Details of pomegranate orchards selected for the study

Sl. No. Village Name Longitude Latitude No of orchards

Age of orchards

1 Govinakoppa 16.203 75.522 7 3-6

2 Kaladagi 16.205 75.501 9 3-6

3 Sokanadagi 16.229 75.568 10 3-7

4 Chikkasamshi 16.236 75.537 3 3-3.5

5 Hiresamshi 16.228 75.526 1 3.5

20

1) Kaladagi 2) Govinakoppa

3) Sokanadagi 4) Chikkasamshi

5) Hiresamshi

Fig. 1 Map depicting the study area in Bagalkot taluka, Karnataka

1 2

3 4 5

21

3.4 Climatic conditions

Weather parameters prevailed during cropping period were recorded and

presented in Table 2. During crop period, the mean maximum and minimum

temperature were 30.02ºC in May and 16.20ºC in January respectively. The mean

maximum relative humidity of 82.47 per cent was observed in July. The total rainfall

of 63.78 mm was received from bahar treatment (August, 2014) to fruit harvesting

(April 2015).

3.5 Collection of data

A preliminary survey of pomegranate orchards was carried out in and around

Kaladagi area. Thirty pomegranate orchards were selected from Govinakoppa (7),

Kaladagi (9), Sokanadagi (10), Chikkasamshi (3) and Hiresamshi (1) and the farmers

of respective orchards were selected as contact farmers. The basic criteria used for

selection of orchards were variety (Bhagwa), crop age (3-7yrs) and season

(hasta bahar). The details of contact farmers are enclosed in Annexure I.

Further, multiple stage data collection strategy was adopted to collect the

information on pomegranate cultivation practices. The contact farmers were

periodically interviewed using the questionnaire developed for the purpose and their

respective orchards were visited for ascertaining the data and collecting the samples.

In the first stage, basic information on pomegranate orchards in terms of area,

variety, plant age and time of bahar treatment were collected. Subsequently, the

information on cultivation practices viz., spacing, spray schedule, irrigation system,

inter-cultural practices etc., in general and nutrient management practices in specific

were collected at different crop growth stages viz., bud differentiation stage, fruit

formation, fruit maturation and during and after harvest. The data collected from

farmers were arranged and analysed for further studies and used for interpretations.

3.6 Nutrient management practices

The data on nutrient management practices followed by the contact farmers

were collected periodically at different stages of crop growth. Information on type and

amount of manures and fertilizers added, their application methods and the nutrient

22

Table 2: Temperature, relative humidity and rainfall recorded during the crop growth period (from June14 to May15)

Temp. (°C) RH (%) Month

Max Min

Mean Temp

Max Max Min

Mean RH (%)

Rainfall (mm)

June 14 32.64 22.56 27.60 83.92 52.85 68.38 13.05

July 14 29.31 21.38 25.34 90.80 74.13 82.47 22.80

August 14 28.96 21.25 25.11 85.96 68.13 77.044 25.58

September 14 28.99 21.032 25.01 86.81 67.52 77.16 17.20

October14 29.25 20.75 25.00 83.50 69.32 76.41 10.50

November 14 29.40 18.00 23.70 86.77 64.38 75.58 1.00

December 14 27.50 16.50 22.00 79.39 66.99 73.19 3.75

January 15 29.60 16.20 22.90 69.77 60.08 64.93 0.00

February 15 32.50 17.25 24.87 74.25 50.00 62.12 0.00

March 15 34.28 19.86 27.07 61.00 39.75 50.37 0.00

April 15 36.53 22.38 58.92 61.87 28.35 45.11 5.75

May 15 35.70 24.74 30.02 59.27 30.25 44.76 12.20

23

contents of fertilizers were collected at each crop growth stage and pooled.

The specific nutrient content of fertilizers applied to crop through direct soil

application, fertigation and through foliar sprays were considered for calculating total

amount of major nutrient application and expressed in terms of gram per plant, by

considering the orchard area and plant spacing. The spacing of pomegranate plants

varied among the selected orchards (generally threes pacing of 3 × 4.5, 3.5 × 4 and

4 × 4 square meter were observed) hence, the plant population were different per unit

hectare. Thus, for uniform interpretation, easy understanding and for comparison with

existing nutrient recommendations, the nutrient application rate was determined per

plant basis.

However, in the present study the nutrient contribution from manures and bio-

fertilizers was not included while calculating nutrient application rate.

3.7 Crop yield and yield parameters

Three healthy pomegranate plants from each orchard were selected randomly

to record following yield parameters.

3.7.1 Number of fruits per plant

Number of fruits from three selected plants was counted and average was

computed.

3.7.2 Fruit weight (gram fruit-1)

The total number and total weight of fruits harvested from three selected

plants at second picking was measured. Then, the fruit weight was calculated using

following the formula and expressed in gram per fruit.

Total weight of fruits Fruit weight (gram/fruit) = --------------------------------

Number of fruits

3.7.3 Fruit yield (kg plant-1)

The fruit yield per plant was calculated by multiplying total number of fruits

in each plant and average fruit weight (g fruit-1) of all three selected plants and their

average was computed to express as kg plant-1.

24

3.7.4 Fruit yield (tonnes ha-1)

The information on marketed pomegranate fruit yield was collected from

contact farmers through personal interview. Then, by considering the actual area of

the orchard, the fruit yield was computed for one hectare area and expressed in tonnes

per hectare.

3.8 Soil analysis

3.8.1 Collection of soil sample

The soil samples were collected from 0-15 cm depth along plant canopy

circumference (approximately 1.0 m away from trunk). Four sub-samples were

randomly collected from an acre of orchard and composite sample was prepared by

adopting quartering technique. The said procedure was adopted to collect soil samples

from all the thirty orchards at different stages of crop growth viz., 30, 70, 210 and 250

days after bahar treatment coinciding with bud differentiation, fruit formation, fruit

maturation and at rest period (after fruit harvest) respectively.

The collected samples were air dried, pounded using wooden pestle and

mortar, sieved (2 mm) and stored in air tight polyethylene bags for further analysis.

The soil samples were analysed for its electrochemical properties using standard

protocols as described below.

3.8.2 Soil pH

Soil pH was determined in 1:2.5, soil: water suspension by using digital pH

meter having combined electrode as described by Jackson (1973).

3.8.3 Electrical conductivity (dS m-1)

Electrical conductivity of the soil samples was measured in 1:2.5, soil: water

extract using conductivity bridge and results were expressed in dS m-1 at 250C

(Jackson, 1973).

3.8.4 Organic carbon (%)

The organic carbon content of soil was determined using wet oxidation method

(Walkley and Black, 1934).

25

Approximately two gram of 2.0 mm sieved soil sample was fine powdered

(0.2 mm) using agate pestle and mortar. A known weight (~0.5g) of finely powdered

sample was treated with known and excess volume of standard K2Cr2O7 in presence

of concentrated H2SO4. The unused K2Cr2O7 was quantified by back titrating with

standard ferrous ammonium sulphate using ferroin as an indicator.

3.8.5 Available nitrogen (kg ha-1)

Alkaline permanganate method developed by Subbiah and Asija (1956) was

used to determine available nitrogen content in soil. A known weight of soil was

distilled with 0.32 per cent KMnO4 and 2.5 per cent NaOH using semi- automated

N-distillation unit. The ammonia liberated is trapped in 2 per cent boric acid + mixed

indicator was titrated against standard H2SO4 solution for determining available

nitrogen content in soil.

3.8.6 Available phosphorus (kg ha-1)

Available phosphorus from soil was extracted using Olsen’s extractant.

The blue colour was developed by ascorbic acid method and the intensity was read at

660 nm using spectrophotometer and calculated referring to P-standard curve in terms

of P2O5 kg ha-1 (Jackson, 1973).

3.8.7 Available potassium (kg ha-1)

Available potassium was extracted from soil using neutral normal ammonium

acetate (1:5), soil to extractant ratio and the concentration of potassium in the extract

was determined using Flame photometer by calibrating with standards and calculated

in terms of K2O kg ha-1 (Jackson 1973).

3.8.8 Exchangeable calcium and magnesium (meq 100 g-1)

Exchangeable Ca and Mg were extracted from soil using neutral normal

ammonium acetate at 1:5, soil to extractant ratio. The concentrations of Ca and Mg in

the extract were determined by adopting Versenate titration method as described by

Jackson (1973).

26

3.8.9 Available sulphur (ppm)

Available sulphur was extracted from soil using 0.15% calcium chloride

solution at 1:5, soil to extractant ratio. The concentration of sulphur was determined

by turbidimetric method using spectrophotometer at 420 nm as described by Black

(1965).

3.8.10 DTPA - Extractable micronutrients (mg kg-1)

Micronutrients from soil were extracted with DTPA-extractant at 1:10, soil to

extractant ratio. The concentration of Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu were determined by atomic

absorption spectrophotometer (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978).

3.8.11 Available boron (mg kg-1)

Available boron in the soil is extracted using hot water at 1:2 ratio. Then,

boron is estimated by colorimetric method using azomethine-H and buffer solution

and the intensity of colour was read at 420 nm using spectrophotometer and

calculated referring to boron standard curve (Berger and Truog,1939).

3.9 Plant analysis

3.9.1 Collection of leaf samples

The index tissue identified for pomegranate plant tissue analysis i.e. eight pair

of leaf from non bearing shoot (Raghupati and Bhargava 1998b), was collected

randomly from the plants where, soil samples were collected from all orchards

separately, at critical stages of crop growth viz., bud differentiation (30DABT), fruit

formation (70DABT) and fruit maturation stage (210DABT) to study their nutrient

contents.

The samples collected were brought to laboratory and washed with dilute

detergent (0.2%) and acid (0.1N) to remove dust and contaminants, finally washed

with distilled water and air dried. Further, powdered using stainless steel mixer jar

and preserved in air tight plastic cover for further analysis.

27

3.9.2 Acid digestion of leaf sample

A known (0.5g) weight of dried leaf samples were digested using di-acid

(HNO3:HClO4 -9:4) mixture on sand bath for analysis of mineral nutrients except

nitrogen. The standard protocols as described below were used for determining the

nutrient content of pomegranate leaves.

3.9.3 Nitrogen (%)

Nitrogen content in leaf was determined by Kjeldhal distillation method.

A known weight (0.50 g) of sample was digested with conc. H2SO4 and digestion

mixture (CuSO4:K2SO4:Se-100:40:1). The digested samples were distilled for

estimating N-content as outlined by Piper (1966).

3.9.4 Phosphorus (%)

Concentration of phosphorus in di-acid digested sample was estimated by

phospho-vanado-molybdate complex method. Yellow colour was read using

spectrophotometer at 430 nm and was estimated by referring to standard curve (Piper,

1966).

3.9.5 Potassium (%)

The di-acid digest sample was fed to a calibrated flame photometer and per

cent potassium was calculated by following Piper (1966) method.

3.9.6 Calcium and Magnesium (%)

The Ca and Mg in the di-acid digested samples were estimated by

complexometric titration method involving standard EDTA (Versenate method).

3.9.7 Sulphur (%)

Sulphur in the di-acid digested samples was determined by developing

turbidity using BaCl2 crystals. The intensity of turbidity developed was measured at

420 nm using spectrophotometer and estimated by referring S- standard curve

(Piper, 1966).

28

3.9.8 Micronutrients

The micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu and Mn) present in di-acid digested samples

were determined by using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) by employing

specific hallow cathode lamp for determining particular micronutrient (Lindsay and

Norvell, 1978).

3.9.9 Boron (ppm)

Boron concentration in digested sample of leaf was estimated using

Azomethine-H reagent method by using spectrophotometer at 420 nm (Berger and

Truog, 1939).

3.10 Statistical analysis

3.10.1 Categorization of pomegranate orchards based on yield levels

Pomegranate fruit yield (t ha-1) was considered as base for classifying orchards

into high, medium and low yielding using following statistical criteria as developed

by Ahmed et al, 2015 for small population group.

1. (Mean + 0.5×SD) were categorised as high yielding orchards

2. < (Mean - 0.5×SD) were categorised as low yielding orchards

3. (Mean + 0.5×SD) to (Mean – 0.5×SD) were categorised as Medium yielding

orchards

Where, Sd = standard deviation and Mean = average pomegranate yield

The yield data in the present investigation collected through personal

interview with contact farmers as described above was analysed and the result

indicate mean pomegranate yield as 13.32 t ha-1 and its standard deviation as 4.428.

Using these values, the orchards having yield level less than 11.1 t ha-1 were

categorised as low yielding orchards and thirteen orchards fell into this category.

Similarly, nine orchards with yield levels of 11.5 – 15.5 t ha-1 were categorised as

medium and eight orchards with yield levels greater than 15.5 t ha-1 were categorised

as high yielding orchards.

29

The soil electro-chemical properties and pomegranate leaf nutrients

concentrations of respective orchards were also grouped into the above said three

categories and were analysed using one way analysis of variance to study the

significance difference between the groups

3.10.2 Correlation index

Simple correlation between pomegranate yield and nutrient variables in leaf

and soils were calculated using Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r).

The MS-office excel programme was used for calculating the simple correlation

matrix. The perfect linear correlation was attained when r = ± 1 and r =0 implies that

x and y tend to have no linear relationship. The table r values 0.361 @ p<0.05 and

0.467 @ p<0.01 were used to determine the significance of relationship between two

variables (Snedecor and Cochran, 1981).

3.10.2 Multiple linear regression

Multiple linear regression models (Snedecor and Cochran, 1981, Dahal and

Routray, 2011) to evaluate the relative contribution of all leaf nutrient variables (N, P,

K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu and B) on fruit yield (Y) were determined as following

Y= a + b1N + b2P + b3K + …….. + bn B

Where,

Y = Dependent variable (pomegranate fruit yield)

a = Intercept

b1, b2, b3,… bn = The slope of the regression line or the amount of change

produced in Y by a unit change in independent variables.

N, P, K…, B = Independent variables (essential nutrients indicated by their

chemical symbol)

Similarly, the multiple linear regression models were developed to evaluate

the relative contribution of all soil variables (pH, EC, OC, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn,

Mn, Cu and B) on fruit yield (Y) as per the above mentioned formula.

30

Nutrient variables in the above regression equation which are unimportant or

redundant explanatory variables were screened out using stepwise backward

regression analysis. The analysis was employed by eliminating single nutrient

variable each time, till improved significant model (in terms of F and t values) was

obtained. Open Stat version 1.9, a computer program was used for carrying out the

backward stepwise multiple regression analysis as suggested by William

Miller (2007).

31

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The present investigation on “Evaluation of soil and leaf nutrient status in

relation to pomegranate productivity” was conducted during hasta bahar season of

2014. The results of the study are presented in this chapter.

4.1 General description of pomegranate orchards

The thirty pomegranate orchards selected for the present study were located in

the five villages, viz., Govinakoppa, Kaladagi, Sokanadagi, Chikkasamshi and

Hiresamshi of Bagalkot taluka, Bagalkot district, Karnataka (Table 1). All the selected

orchards had ‘Bhagawa’ pomegranate variety of age 3 to7 years old. The bahar

treatment (defoliation, light pruning and fertilizer application) were imposed during

August, 2014. The new leaf flushes appeared on the tree between 8 to 12 days and

profuse flowering was observed during 1 and 2nd week of September, 2014. The fruits

were harvested in 4 to 5 picking during March 2014 (Appendix-I).

4.2 Major nutrient inputs recorded in different categories of

pomegranate orchards

The details of amount of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5 indicated as P) and

potassium (K2O indicated as K) applied through inorganic fertilizer in different

categories of pomegranate orchard is presented in Table 3.

Wide variation was recorded in terms N application rate to pomegranate

plants, recording as low as 107.00 to as high as 287.60 g plant-1 (Table 3).

Significantly highest mean amount of 259.09 g of N per plant was recorded in high

yielding orchards. The medium orchards received mean amount of 176.19 g N plant-1,

which was higher than low yield orchards (133.72 g plant-1).

Amount of phosphorus applied to pomegranate plants did not vary

significantly among different categories of pomegranate orchards (Table 3). However,

medium yielding orchards received relatively higher P (311.64 g plant-1) application

compared to low (303.64g plant-1) and high yielding (283.09 g plant-1) orchards.

32

Table 3: Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium application through inorganic fertilizers in different categories pomegranate orchards

Nitrogen Phosphorus (P2O5) Potassium (K2O)

Category Range Average Range Average Range Average

Low (n=13) 107.00 - 181.60 133.70 ± 22.82 187.70 - 536.00 303.60 ± 96.00 115.20 - 300.00 187.17 ± 74.14

Medium (n=9) 154.00 - 177.60 176.20 ± 13.92 231.20 - 373.00 311.60 ± 51.70 142.00 - 265.20 217.76 ± 41.09

High (n=8) 152.90 - 287.60 259.10 ± 43.11 215.30 -371.30 283.10 ± 44.90 152.70 - 299.90 239.04 ± 47.50

SE m± 16.69 NS NS

CD @ 5% 47.78 NS NS

32

33

The application rate of potassium (K) did not vary significantly among

different categories of pomegranate orchards (Table 3). However, highest amount of

K (239.04 g plant-1) application was noticed in high yielding pomegranate orchards

followed by medium (217.76 g plant-1) and low (187.17 g plant-1) yielding orchards.

Farmers have applied K as low as 115.21 g plant-1 to as high as 299.89 g plant-1

during crop growth period.

4.3 Soil properties of pomegranate orchards at various crop

growth stages

4.3.1 Electrochemical properties of soil

The variation in soil reaction, electrical conductivity and organic carbon

content of soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various stages of

crop growth is presented in Table 4.

The changes in soil reaction were not significant among different categories of

orchards. However, the soils were alkaline in nature, ranging from 7.69 to 8.72 with

mean of 8.20 in low yielding orchards while, soil pH was marginally low in medium

(8.12) and high yielding (8.09) orchards at bud differentiation stage. Further, the soil

pH reduced slightly up to fruit maturation stage and increased slightly after the

harvest of fruit in all categories of orchards.

The electrical conductivity of soil did not vary significantly among different

categories of orchards. However, EC ranging from 0.35 to 0.93 dS m-1 was recorded

at 30DBT, which was increased to 0.43 to1.06 dsm-1 after the harvest of fruit among

thirty pomegranate orchards.

Organic carbon (OC) content in soil varied significantly among different

categories of pomegranate orchards at all stages of crop growth. The highest OC

content ranging from 0.81 to 1.07 per cent, with a mean of 0.89 per cent, was noticed

in high yielding orchards, which was on par with medium yielding (0.79%) and

significantly superior than low yielding (0.54%) orchards. The OC content decrease

with advancement of crop growth, recording significantly lowest content of 0.37 per

cent in low yielding orchards as compared to high (0.56%) and medium (0.58%)

yielding orchards at 210DBT.

34

Table 4: Soil pH, electrical conductivity and organic carbon in different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT* 70 DBT 210 DBT 250 DBT

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Soil pH

Low (n=13) 7.69 - 8.72 8.20 ± 0.35 7.63 - 8.61 8.09 ± 0.27 7.50 - 8.41 8.03 ± 0.28 7.89 - 8.72 8.21 ± 0.28

Medium (n=9) 7.91 - 8.43 8.12 ± 0.17 7.76 - 8.25 8.05 ± 0.16 7.76 - 8.26 8.02 ± 0.16 7.74 - 8.34 8.09 ± 0.18

High (n=8) 7.91 - 8.20 8.09 ± 0.10 7.98 - 8.17 8.08 ± 0.05 7.84 - 8.12 8.04 ± 0.09 7.96 - 8.27 8.12 ± 0.10

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Electric conductivity (dS m-1)

Low 0.40 - 0.93 0.58 ± 0.15 0.49 - 0.96 0.64 ± 0.15 0.49 - 0.96 0.64 ± 0.15 0.48 - 1.06 0.70 ± 0.17

Medium 0.34 - 0.90 0.65 ± 0.16 0.48 - 0.96 0.67 ± 0.14 0.48 - 0.96 0.67 ± 0.14 0.43 - 0.76 0.64 ± 0.11

High 0.51 - 0.79 0.62 ± 0.11 0.59 - 0.72 0.68 ± 0.07 0.58 - 0.85 0.68 ± 0.07 0.55 - 0.79 0.70 ± 0.07

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Organic carbon (%)

Low 0.33 - 0.71 0.54 ± 0.11 0.26 - 0.64 0.46 ± 0.12 0.21 - 0.98 0.44 ± 0.19 0.21 - 0.46 0.37 ± 0.10

Medium 0.65 - 0.87 0.79 ± 0.07 0.50 - 0.79 0.65 ± 0.10 0.43 - 0.67 0.56 ± 0.09 0.42 - 1.06 0.58 ± 0.18

High 0.81 - 1.07 0.89 ± 0.11 0.60 - 0.95 0.76 ± 0.13 0.53 - 0.89 0.64 ± 0.15 0.41 - 0.72 0.56 ± 0.12

SE m± 0.030 0.038 0.052 0.046

CD @5% 0.110 0.137 0.184 0.163 *DBT- Days after bahar treatment

34

35

4.3.2 Major nutrient status (N, P &K) in soils of pomegranate orchard

The availability of N in soils of pomegranate orchards varied significantly at

all stages of crop growth (Table 5). Highest mean N of 372.5 kg ha-1 was recorded in

high yield orchards followed by 329.1 kg ha-1 in medium and significantly lowest N

of 238.9 kg ha-1 in low yielding orchards at 30 days after bahar treatment. Similar

trend was observed at all other stages of crop growth. However, N availability

decreased with advancement of crop growth and lowest was recorded after the harvest

of the fruit (250 DBT) where, low yielding orchards recorded significantly lowest N

content 176.3 kg ha-1 compared to 207.3 kg ha-1 in high yielding but, was found on par

with medium yielding orchards (176.3kg ha-1).

Available phosphorus content in different pomegranate orchard soils did not

vary significantly at all stages of crop growth (Table 5). The high yielding orchards

recorded marginally higher P content of 38.74 kg ha-1 at 30DBT, which decreased to

25.19 kg ha-1 at 250 DBT. In general, the availability of P decreased with

advancement of crop growth.

The available potassium content of soil at different stages of crop growth is

presented in Table 5. At bud differentiation stage, medium yielding (356.88 kg ha-1)

and high yielding orchards (350.05 kg ha-1) recorded on par available K in soil which

was significantly superior than low yielding (281.56 kg ha-1) orchards. With the

advancement of crop growth, available K content decreased recording lowest K of

173.46 kg ha-1 in low yield orchards, after the harvest of fruit (250DBT). Whereas,

medium and high yielding orchards showed significantly higher K content of 199.40

and 223.87 kg ha-1 respectively.

4.3.3 Secondary nutrient (Ca, Mg & S) status in soils of pomegranate

orchard

Marginally higher available Ca was recorded in low yielding orchards (18.00,

17.51, 17.07 and 17.34 meq 100 g-1 at 30, 70, 210 and 250 DBT respectively), as

compared to high yielding (17.66, 16.98, 16.58 and16.76 meq 100 g-1 at 30, 70, 210

and 250 DBT respectively) and medium yielding (17.84, 16.56, 16.41 and 16.53 at 30,

70, 210 and 250 DBT respectively) orchards (Table 6).

36

Table 5: Major nutrient content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT 250 DBT

Available Nitrogen (kg ha-1)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 199.40 - 284.10 238.00 ± 28.26 175.80 - 256.40 215.00 ± 21.85 108.90 - 224.80 190.30 ± 30.38 143.20 ± 217.60 176.30 ± 20.60

Medium 306.40 - 357.50 329.10 ± 16.01 236.60 - 295.90 266.50 ± 24.99 198.80 - 296.30 244.50 ± 25.87 147.40- 247.10 194.30 ± 28.18

High 326.10- 482.20 372.50 ± 45.64 270.70 - 340.80 298.20 ± 28.12 233.00- 272.40 255.50 ± 12.14 183.20- 227.40 207.30 ± 11.49

SE m± 10.76 8.46 10.886 7.356

CD @ 5% 37.85 29.76 30.61 25.87

Available Phosphorus (P2O5 kg ha-1)

Low 12.34 - 62.35 34.14 ± 16.35 10.46 - 51.85 29.82 ± 14.52 9.48 - 52.57 26.20 ± 13.83 9.19 - 41.38 22.63 ± 10.57

Medium 14.32 - 64.28 34.47 ± 14.33 13.86 - 36.88 31.41 ± 10.58 11.57 - 46.87 27.87 ± 10.04 10.55- 47.29 25.58 ± 9.93

High 14.41- 61.95 38.74 ± 16.26 11.58 - 54.80 33.16 ± 13.98 11.18 - 43.76 27.41 ± 10.62 10.69- 36.35 25.19 ± 9.24

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Available Potassium (K2O kg ha-1)

Low 225.80 - 360.60 281.60 ± 39.20 156.40 - 284.90 215.50 ± 38.89 153.70 - 329.00 206.70 ± 42.39 103.20 - 218.80 173.50 ± 35.65

Medium 312.40 - 432.70 356.90 ± 37.40 147.20 - 276.60 207.90± 38.49 162.90 - 248.60 217.00 ± 29.10 140.10 - 249.50 199.40 ± 33.11

High 326.10- 445.30 350.10 ± 60.51 207.10 - 283.10 248.30 ± 29.70 233.00 - 280.80 257.50 ± 18.23 183.20 - 247.70 223.90 ± 20.59

SE m± 17.605 NS NS NS

CD @ 5% 54.951 NS NS NS

36

37

Table 6: Secondary nutrient content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT 250 DBT

Exchangeable Calcium (meq 100g-1)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 9.57 - 27.60 18.00 ± 6.33 10.04 -27.84 17.51 ± 6.35 9.28 - 26.30 17.07 ± 6.10 10.56 - 26.90 17.34 ± 5.76

Medium 10.49 - 31.75 17.84 ± 7.16 9.96 - 29.08 16.56 ± 6.36 10.27- 27.23 16.41 ± 5.66 9.61 - 28.48 16.53 ± 5.81

High 11.69 - 25.01 17.66 ± 4.24 10.20 - 27.97 16.98 ± 5.45 11.06 - 26.25 16.58 ± 4.60 10.82 - 27.28 16.76 ± 4.93

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Exchangeable Magnesium (meq 100g-1)

Low 3.65 - 8.92 5.97 ± 1.72 3.52- 8.16 5.71 ± 1.66 3.16 - 7.24 5.16 ± 1.61 3.08 - 7.87 5.17 ± 1.72

Medium 4.56 - 7.86 6.31 ± 1.20 4.64- 7.16 5.96 ± 0.88 3.69 - 6.41 5.18 ± 0.90 3.39 - 6.45 4.98 ± 1.00

High 3.31- 7.34 5.68 ± 1.10 4.25- 6.71 5.36 ± 0.90 3.32 - 6.73 5.05 ± 0.97 4.13 - 6.21 4.70 ± 0.83

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Available Sulphur (mg kg-1)

Low 6.69 - 17.17 11.66 ± 3.73 5.23 - 18.23 10.39 ± 3.82 4.58 - 16.58 9.75 ± 3.42 4.78 - 15.20 8.84 ± 3.18

Medium 11.90 - 22.50 15.67 ± 3.29 9.88 - 17.14 14.13 ± 2.37 7.65 - 14.65 11.54 ± 2.20 7.68 - 12.80 10.58 ± 1.68

High 12.98 - 19.12 15.26 ±1.94 10.47- 15.81 12.77 ± 1.63 9.81- 12.08 11.19 ± 0.69 8.76 - 12.20 10.23 ± 1.14

SE m± 1.16 1.01 NS NS

CD @ 5% 3.879 3.571 NS NS

37

38

The variation in the available magnesium content of soil was found to be non-

significant at all stages of crop growth (Table 6). Relatively higher Mg was observed

in medium yielding orchards during crop growth period while, residual Mg after

harvest of crop was highest in low yielding orchards (5.17 meq 100 g-1) followed by

medium (4.98 meq 100 g -1) and high (4.70 meq 100 g -1) yielding orchards.

Available sulfur content in soil varied significantly up to fruit formation stage

and subsequent changes among different orchards were insignificant (Table 6).

Maximum availability of S was noticed at 30DBT, recording mean S content of 15.67

mg kg-1 in medium yielding orchards followed by high yielding (15.20 mg kg-1) and

low yielding (11.66mg kg-1) orchards.

4.3.4 Micronutrients status in soils of pomegranate orchard

The data pertaining to DTPA-Zn content in soil revealed insignificant

variation among different orchards (Table 7). Relatively higher Zn content was

observed during bud differentiation stage in medium yielding orchards (2.99 mg kg-1)

which decreased with advancement of crop growth recording 1.76 mg kg-1 after the

harvest of fruit.

DTPA-Fe content was insignificant at all stages of crop growth among

different categories of pomegranate orchards (Table 7). Relatively high amount of

DTPA- Fe was found in medium yielding orchards at 30 DBT (4.12mg kg-1) and

decreased subsequently with advancement of crop growth.

`DTPA-Mn in soil varied significantly at all stages of crop growth (Table 7).

Amongst different categories of orchards, high yielding recorded maximum mean Mn

content of 18.93 mg kg-1 at bud differentiation stage and was decreased with

advancement of crop growth recording 13.88 mg kg-1 after the harvest of fruit.

Residual Mn was greatest in medium yielding orchards (15.03mg kg-1), which was

significantly higher than low yielding orchards (9.11mg kg-1).

Variation in DTPA-Cu content in soil was insignificant among different

orchards at all crop growth stages (Table 8). Its content decreased with advancement

of crop growth and relatively more Cu was observed in medium yielding orchards

ranging from 5.07 to 3.46 mg kg-1 at 30 and 250 DBT, respectively.

39

Table 7: Micronutrient content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT 250 DBT

DTPA-Zinc (mg kg-1)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 0.99 - 2.89 2.01 ± 0.56 1.03 - 2.77 1.94 ± 0.49 1.15 - 2.80 1.85 ± 0.49 1.04 - 2.88 1.66 ± 0.46

Medium 1.38 - 5.57 2.99 ± 1.28 1.22 - 4.73 2.58 ± 0.10 1.41- 3.46 2.10 ± 0.67 1.34 - 2.19 1.76 ± 0.33

High 1.38 - 3.87 2.69 ± 0.73 1.80 - 3.56 2.51 ± 0.51 1.71- 2.59 2.17± 0.33 1.34 - 2.18 1.72 ± 0.25

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

DTPA-Iron (mg kg-1)

Low 2.81- 4.45 3.58 ± 0.48 2.39 - 4.75 3.34 ± 0.72 2.06 -5.34 3.51 ± 0.90 2.27 - 4.75 3.16 ± 0.55

Medium 2.79 - 5.30 4.12 ± 0.74 2.99 -5.00 3.99 ± 0.61 2.86 - 4.98 3.85 ± 0.72 2.36 - 4.50 3.30 ± 0.62

High 2.89 - 4.58 3.42 ± 0.53 2.15 - 4.47 3.16 ± 0.70 2.20 - 4.26 3.27 ± 0.66 2.32 - 4.25 2.97 ± 0.68

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

DTPA-Manganese (mg kg-1)

Low 8.99 - 24.94 12.21 ± 4.04 7.46 - 20.26 10.35 ± 3.19 7.00 - 19.99 9.48 ± .21 6.73 - 18.73 9.11 ± 3.06

Medium 13.90- 33.49 18.23 ± 7.02 12.13 - 29.90 16.54 ± 6.29 11.63 - 29.40 16.04 ± 6.29 11.19 - 27.13 15.03 ± 5.31

High 12.06- 26.35 18.93 ± 4.56 9.82 - 22.26 16.11 ± 4.04 9.67 - 20.10 14.99 ± 3.49 8.49 - 17.95 13.88 ± 3.44

SE m± 2.029 1.882 1.715 1.39

CD @ 5% 6.336 5.464 5.353 4.899

39

40

Table 8: Copper and Boron content in soils of different categories of pomegranate orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT 250 DBT

DTPA - Copper (mg kg-1)

Category Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average

Low 2.67 - 5.74 4.18 ± 1.48 2.45 - 8.97 3.99 ± 1.70 2.45 - 7.79 3.80 ± 1.37 2.03 - 6.07 3.41 ± 1.26

Medium 3.01- 7.51 5.07 ± 1.55 2.62 - 6.40 4.60 ± 1.12 3.76 - 6.61 4.25 ± 1.14 1.95- 5.16 3.46 ± 1.07

High 2.85 - 5.18 4.05 ± 0.65 1.96 - 4.96 3.50 ± 0.92 1.30 - 4.06 2.97 ± 0.81 0.93- 3.66 2.63 ± 0.80

SE m± NS NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS

Boron (mg kg-1)

Low 0.44 - 0.76 0.06 ± 0.10 0.34- 0.70 0.54 ± 0.09 0.24 - 0.55 0.46 ± 0.09 0.23 - 0.60 0.41 ± 1.10

Medium 0.58 - 0.77 0.67 ± 0.06 0.47- 0.64 0.53 ± 0.06 0.38 - 0.56 0.47 ± 0.05 0.21 - 0.47 0.41 ± 0.08

High 0.65 - 0.83 0.76 ± 0.06 0.55- 0.68 0.60 ± 0.04 0.44 - 0.58 0.52 ± 0.05 0.42 - 0.61 0.05 ± 0.07

SE m± 0.03 NS NS NS

CD @ 5% 0.096 NS NS NS

40

41

Significant variation in B content of soil was observed only at bud

differentiation stage (Table 8). The high yielding orchards recorded the highest B

content ranging from 0.65-0.83 mg kg-1 with a mean of 0.76 mg kg-1. This was

statistically equivalent to medium yielding orchard (0.67mg kg-1) but, was

significantly higher than low yielding orchards (0.65mg kg-1). Later the B content in

soil decreased with advancement of crop growth.

4.4 Pomegranate leaf nutrient concentration at different stages of

crop growth

4.4.1 Major leaf nutrient (N, P& K) concentration of pomegranate

orchards

Nitrogen concentration in pomegranate leaves decreased with advancement of

crop growth in all categories of pomegranate orchards (Table 9). At 30DBT,

significantly highest N mean concentration of 1.74 per cent was recorded in high

yielding orchards as compared to medium (1.31%) and low (0.94%) yielding

orchards. Lowest N concentration was observed at fruit maturation stage (210 DBT)

ranging from 0.82 per cent in low yielding to 1.45 per cent in high yielding orchards.

Highest phosphorus content in leaves was observed in high yielding

pomegranate orchards ranging from 0.22 to 0.31 per cent, with average P content of

0.28 per cent at fruit formation stage (Table 9). This was significantly superior to low

yielding orchards (0.20%) but was on par with medium yielding orchards (0.25%).

However, the variation in P content was not significant at other stages.

Potassium content in pomegranate leaves varied significantly at all stages of

crop growth recording 1.21-2.15 per cent at bud differentiation, 1.30-2.23 per cent at

fruit formation and 0.78-1.55 at fruit maturation stage (Table 9). Among different

categories of orchards, high yielding orchards recorded significantly highest mean

leaf K content of 1.74, 1.99 and 1.43 per cent at 30, 70 and 210DBT respectively.

This was on par with medium yielding (1.56, 1.81 and 1.31 per cent respectively) and

significantly superior than low yielding (1.38, 1.69 and 1.24 per cent respectively)

orchards.

42

Table 9: Major nutrient content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

Nitrogen (%)

Category Range Average Range Average Range Average

Low 0.62 - 1.46 0.94 ± 0.22 0.68 - 1.32 0.89 ± 0.20 0.63- 1.14 0.82 ± 0.17

Medium 1.08 - 1.57 1.31 ± 0.17 0.92 - 1.48 1.16 ± 0.18 0.87- 1.36 1.05 ± 0.19

High 1.56 - 1.93 1.74 ± 0.14 1.50 - 1.86 1.66 ± 0.14 1.32- 1.64 1.45 ± 0.11

SE m± 0.069 0.066 0.059

CD @ 5% 0.230 0.219 0.197

Phosphorus (%)

Low 0.13 - 0.32 0.18 ± 0.05 0.15 - 0.27 0.20 ± 0.04 0.10 - 0.22 0.15 ± 0.04

Medium 0.13 - 0.26 0.21 ± 0.04 0.17- 0.29 0.25 ± 0.04 0.11- 0.21 0.15 ± 0.04

High 0.18 - 0.27 0.22 ± 0.03 0.22 - 0.31 0.28 ± 0.03 0.14- 0.19 0.16 ± 0.03

SE m± NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS

Potassium (%)

Low 1.21- 1.78 1.38 ± 0.16 1.31- 2.05 1.69 ± 0.17 0.78 - 1.47 1.24 ± 0.16

Medium 1.20 - 2.15 1.56 ± 0.27 1.30 - 2.18 1.81 ± 0.27 1.16 - 1.51 1.31 ± 0.11

High 1.37- 2.04 1.74 ± 0.20 1.62 - 2.23 1.99 ± 0.21 1.27 - 1.55 1.43 ± 0.09

SE m± 0.071 0.074 0.045

CD @ 5% 0.251 0.259 0.158

42

43

4.4.2 Secondary leaf nutrients concentration (Ca, Mg & S) of

pomegranate orchards

Calcium content in pomegranate leaves varied significantly at all stages of

crop growth (Table 15). At 30DBT, highest Ca content of 1.91 per cent was noticed in

high yielding orchards followed by medium (1.70%) and low (1.37%) yielding

orchards. Maximum leaf Ca content was observed at fruit formation stage and

subsequently decreased during fruit maturation stage. However, available calcium

content of soils did not vary significantly at any stages of crop growth among

different pomegranate orchards (Table 10).

Significant variation was recorded in terms of Mg content in pomegranate

leaves in different categories of orchards at 70 and 210 DBT (Table 10) while, the

variation was insignificant at 30DBT. Maximum Mg content was recorded at fruit

formation stage in high yielding orchards (0.51%) which was significantly superior to

low yielding (0.40%) but was on par with medium (0.45%) yielding orchards.

Sulphur content of pomegranate leaves decreased with advancement of crop

(Table 10). Significantly lowest S content of 0.124, 0.098 and 0.076 per cent was

recorded in low yielding orchards at 30,70 and 210 DBT respectively, as compared to

medium (0.228, 0.192 and 0.119 per cent respectively) and high yielding orchards

(0.288, 0.235 and 0.134 per cent, respectively).

4.4.3 Micro nutrients concentration in pomegranate leaf of different

orchards

The zinc content of pomegranate leaves is presented in Table 11. Significantly

higher Zn was recorded in high yielding orchards ranging from 14.22-19.3 mg kg-1

with a mean Zn content of 16.53 mg kg-1. This was on par with medium yield

orchards (14.23 mg kg-1) and significantly higher than low yielding (12.39 mgkg-1)

orchards. However, variation in Zn content was not significant at bud differentiation

and fruit formation stage.

The iron content in leaves of different categories of pomegranate orchards did

not recorded significant variation (Table 11). However, marginally higher amount of

Fe was found in high yielding orchards recording 182.85, 161.26 and 120.79 mg kg-1

at 30, 70 and 210 DBT respectively.

44

Table 10: Secondary nutrient content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

Calcium (%)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 1.13 - 2.03 1.37 ± 0.24 1.13 - 1.95 1.45 ± 0.21 1.08 - 1.73 1.26 ± 0.17

Medium 1.37- 2.16 1.70 ± 0.24 1.48 - 2.24 1.87 ± 0.25 1.29 - 1.91 1.55 ± 0.23

High 1.60 - 2.30 1.91 ± 0.20 1.54 - 2.23 1.92 ± 0.23 1.22 - 1.98 1.64 ± 0.26

SE m± 0.079 0.078 0.075

CD @ 5% 0.279 0.275 0.263

Magnesium (%)

Low 0.24 - 0.56 0.37 ± 0.40 0.31 - 0.58 0.40 ± 0.08 0.21- 0.39 0.29 ± 0.05

Medium 0.32 - 0.63 0.44 ± 0.45 0.35 - 0.67 0.45 ± 0.09 0.27- 0.48 0.35 ± 0.06

High 0.40 - 0.53 0.47 ± 0.51 0.44 - 0.60 0.51 ± 0.05 0.32- 0.45 0.39 ± 0.04

SE m± 0.026 0.027 0.020

CD @ 5% 0.093 0.094 0.063

Sulphur (%)

Low 0.06 - 0.27 0.12 ± 0.06 0.06 - 0.20 0.10 ± 0.04 0.05 - 0.10 0.08 ± 0.01

Medium 0.13 - 0.42 0.23 ± 0.09 0.12 - 0.33 0.19 ± 0.07 0.09 - 0.15 0.12 ± 0.02

High 0.18 - 0.40 0.29 ± 0.07 0.17 - 0.34 0.24 ± 0.05 0.10 - 0.22 0.13 ± 0.04

SE m± 0.027 0.019 0.009

CD @ 5% 0.089 0.064 0.030 44

45

Table 11: Zinc, Iron and Manganese content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

Zinc (mg kg-1)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 9.53 - 27.84 20.46 ± 5.38 9.55 - 23.77 15.38 ± 3.50 8.43 - 17.14 12.39 ± 3.07

Medium 9.81 - 56.18 25.45 ± 15.23 12.38 - 33.83 19.63 ±7.23 9.10 - 16.53 14.23 ± 2.18

High 11.63 - 39.26 21.26 ± 8.95 15.17- 20.5 16.60 ± 3.04 14.22 -19.30 16.53 ± 1.56

SE m± NS NS 0.853

CD @ 5% NS NS 3.002

Iron (mg kg-1)

Low 135.80 - 237.90 168.25 ±29.41 108.60- 203.30 144.59 ± 31.59 94.90 - 197.4 118.18 ± 28.46

Medium 126.80 - 220.30 178.38 ± 32.30 110.90 - 197.20 158.72 ± 29.44 97.60 - 139.10 119.31 ±14.09

High 140.80 – 223.00 182.85 ± 26.33 114.40 - 198.00 161.26 ± 26.65 100.00 - 153.60 120.79 ± 16.08

SE m± NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS

Manganese (mg kg-1)

Low 39.70 - 57.40 54.87 ± 8.99 38.80 - 72.70 48.64 ± 8.39 16.10 - 69.50 38.20 ± 12.12

Medium 62.40 - 82.10 67.11 ± 5.53 44.70 - 68.50 55.87 ± 6.38 35.10 - 47.90 42.89 ± 5.48

High 56.40 - 83.80 71.56 ± 7.76 50.6 0- 76.20 62.08 ± 9.29 31.20 - 52.70 41.55 ± 7.48

SE m± 2.671 2.789 NS

CD @ 5% 9.396 9.812 NS 45

46

Copper content in pomegranate leaves increased with advancement of crop

growth however, difference among different categories of pomegranate orchards was

not significant (Table12). Highest amount of Cu content was observed in low yielding

orchards recording 54.44 mg kg-1 followed by medium yielding (41.76 mg kg-1) and

high yielding (38.80 mg kg-1) orchards at fruit maturation stage.

The data on Boron content in pomegranate leaves is presented in Table 12.

Significant variation was recorded in leaf B content among different categories of

orchards at all stages of crop growth. High yielding orchards accumulated

significantly higher mean B content of 14.24, 14.43 and 12.69 mg kg-1 at 30, 70 and

210 DBT respectively. Medium yielding orchards recorded 10.40, 11.62 and 10.28mg

kg-1, which was on par with low yielding orchards showing 10.22, 10.54 and 8.84 mg

kg-1 at 30, 70 and 210 DBT respectively.

4.5 Pomegranate yield and yield parameters under different

categories of orchards

4.5.1 Pomegranate yield

The mean of pomegranate fruit yield and its standard deviation were

considered for categorizing the orchards into low, medium and high yielding

(Table 13). The orchards yield levels less than11.1 t ha-1 were considered as low,

while yield level between11.1 to 15.5 t ha-1 was consider as medium and more than

15.5 t ha-1 as high yielding. Amongst the thirty pomegranate orchards studied, 13

orchards were grouped under low category and their yield ranged from 8.25-10.25 t

ha-1, with a mean yield of 9.42 t ha-1. Medium category orchards (9 number) recorded

significantly higher average yield of 13.17 t ha-1 showing yield range of 11.5 to 14.5 t

ha-1, compared to low category. Eight orchards recorded significantly highest mean

yield of 19.81 t ha-1 and their yield levels ranged from 15.5 to 22.0 t ha-1.

4.5.2 Fruit weight per plant

Maximum mean fruit weight of 19.77 kg plant-1 was recorded in high yielding

orchards which was significantly higher than medium (13.45 kg plant-1) and low

(10.54 kg plant-1) yielding orchards (Table 13). However, deviation in average fruit

47

Table 12: Copper and Boron content in pomegranate leaves of different categories of orchards at various growth stages

Growth stages 30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

Copper (mg kg-1)

Category Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Low 11.70 - 43.70 25.36 ± 10.03 20.00 - 59.90 35.67 ±12..38 25.40 - 88.50 54.44 ± 20.59

Medium 22.50 - 40.60 31.26 ± 5.17 28.50 - 46.20 34.42 ± 5.35 32.40 - 51.20 41.76 ±7.96

High 20.60 - 39.40 26.21 ± 5.96 23.00 - 35.30 30.41 ± 3.82 32.90 - 42.80 38.80 ± 3.71

SE m± NS NS NS

CD @ 5% NS NS NS

Boron (mg kg-1)

Low 7.32 - 13.22 10.22 ± 1.91 7.15- 13.21 10.54 ±1.84 6.45 - 11.24 8.84 ±1.52

Medium 8.41- 13.73 10.44 ±1.66 9.41- 15.21 11.62 ±1.74 8.35 - 12.11 10.28 ±1.09

High 9.43- 18.19 14.24 ±2.92 10.15- 17.63 14.43 ±2.45 9.21 - 16.42 12.69 ±2.25

SE m± 0.744 0.685 0.566

CD @ 5% 2.619 2.41 1.99

47

48

Table 13: Pomegranate fruit yield among different categories of orchards

Yield (t ha-1) Fruit yield (kg plant-1)

Category

Range Average Range Average

Low (n=13) 8.30 - 10.30 9.42 ± 0.76 9.24 - 11.71 10.54 ± 0.82

Medium (n=9) 10.50 - 14.50 13.17 ± 1.33 10.38 - 13.86 13.45 ± 1.32

High (n=8) 15.50 - 22.0 19.81 ± 1.94 14.22 - 17.63 19.77 ± 1.59

SE m± 0.459 0.512

CD @ 5% 1.616 1.477

49

weight was highest in high yielding orchards (1.59) as compared to medium (1.32)

and low (0.81) yielding orchards.

4.5.3 Number of fruits per plant

Significant variation was observed in number of fruits per plant among

different categories of orchards (Table 14). High yielding orchards recorded 77 mean

number of fruits (Plate 1 and Plate 2) which were significantly superior to medium

(70) and low yield orchards (63).

4.5.4 Fruit weight (g fruit-1)

The fruit weight varied significantly among different category of pomegranate

orchards and the data is presented in Table 14.

Maximum fruit weight of 342.0 g was observed in high yielding orchards.

While, the lowest mean fruit weight of 224.1 g (Plate 3 and 4) was recorded in low

category. Highest variation in fruit weight was observed in medium category

recording 228.9 to 288.7 g with mean weight of 256.2 g (Plate 5 and Plate 6) which

was on par with low category.

4.6 Associations between pomegranate yield and soil nutrient

content at various crop growth stages

4.6.1 Correlations among soil nutrient contents and pomegranate yield

The correlation analysis among different soil nutrient parameters at 30, 70 and

210 DBT is presented in Table 15.

At bud differentiation stage, significant positive correlation was found

between OC (0.815), N (0.789), K (0.397), S (0.364), Mn (0.470) and B (0.531) with

pomegranate yield. Soil pH (-0.166), Mg (-0.085) and Fe (-0.113) recorded negative

correlation with yield but were not significant. The organic carbon content of soils

recorded positive relationship with available N (0.749) and S (0.707) content in soil.

Similar trend was observed at fruit formation and maturation stage where, OC,

N, K, Mn and B were significantly and positively correlated to yield at both the stages

but, K and Mn were found significant only at fruit maturation stage.

50

Table 14: Fruit weight and number of fruits per plant among different categories of

pomegranate orchards

No. of fruits per plant Fruit weight (g plant-1)

Category

Range Average Range Average

Low (n=13) 58.00 - 66.00 62.69 ± 1.64 206.00 - 243.0 224.10 ± 12.18

Medium (n=9) 64.00 - 74.00 70.00 ± 2.10 228.90 - 288.70 256.20 ± 21.80

High (n=8) 71.00 – 81.00 77.00 ± 2.50 312.80 - 364.20 342.00 ±15.55

SE m± 1.035 5.66

CD @ 5% 3.442 19.93

51

52

53

54

Table 15: Correlation index (r) among pomegranate yield and soil nutrient content at various crop growth stages

Yield and Major nutrients

Yield and Secondary nutrients

Yield and Micronutrients Synergetic correlation among nutrients

Antagonistic correlation among

nutrients

At bud differentiation stage

OC 0.815** S 0.364* Mn 0.470* OC & N 0.749** P & Mg 0.371* OC & Cu -0.005

N 0.789** Ca 0.309 B 0.567** OC & S 0.707** Mg & Ca 0.554** P & B -0.064

K 0.397* N & K 0.547** Ca & Cu 0.380* Cu & S -0.034

N & Mn 0.446* Cu & Mn 0.426* Fe & Zn -0.014

At fruit formation stage

OC 0.754** Ca 0.336 Mn 0.442* OC & N 0.627** Cu &Mn 0.378* OC & Cu -0.079

N 0.710** S 0.288 OC & S 0.600** Fe & S 0.508* Cu & Fe -0.060

K 0.307 Ca & Mg 0.546** EC & B 0.468* Cu & Zn -0.084

At fruit maturation stage

OC 0.524** Ca 0.326 Mn 0.452** OC&S 0.554** P & Mg 0.373 OC & Cu -0.271

N 0.635** S 0.224 B 0.371* OC & N 0.081 Ca & Mg 0.588** Cu & Fe -0.062

K 0.521** N&K 0.468* Cu & Mn 0.367 Cu & Zn -0.270

N, P and K in (kg ha-1) Ca, Mg and S in (meq 100g-1) Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu and B in (mg kg-1) *p<0.05 **p<0.01

54

55

Among the different soil parameters, significant synergistic correlation was

found between OC & N and OC & S at all stages of crop growth while, antagonistic

relation was found between OC & Cu but was insignificant.

4.6.2 Regression analysis between pomegranate yield and soil parameters.

The multiple linear regression models developed employing pomegranate

yield against soil parameters found significant at all stages of crop growth. The best

regression model through reduction of soil variables have at different growth stages is

as below

Y= -4.928- 2.84pH + 17.18OC + 0.02N + 0.06P- 0.30S- 1.20Fe + 12.26B at bud

differentiation

Y=-7.84 + 8.04EC + 17.79OC + 0.02N + 0.03K-1.81Fe at fruit formation stage

Y= -11.58 + 11.85OC + 0.05N + 0.03K at fruit maturation stage

The data indicated significant positive contribution from OC (4.36), N (2.08),

P (2.27) and B (3.44) on pomegranate yield. But, pH (-1.79), S (-2.19) and Fe (-2.37)

showed negative contribution on pomegranate yield at bud differentiation stage.

At fruit formation stage significant positive contribution was noticed by EC

(2.42), OC (5.45), N (1.74) and K (2.47) soil variables and negative contribution by

Fe (-3.27).

At fruit maturation stage only OC (4.18), N (3.79) and K (2.08) content were

significantly (F=18.54) contributing to pomegranate yielding. However, only 68.1 per

cent variation in yield was due to these parameters (Table 16).

4.6.3 Correlation among leaf nutrient contents and pomegranate yield

The correlation matrix generated among leaf nutrient variables and yield is

shown in Table 17. The matrix reveals significant positive correlation between

pomegranate yield with N (0.852), P (0.456), K (0.592), Ca (0.750), Mg (0.496),

56

Table 16: Regression model iterated for selected soil nutrient content with pomegranate yield at different growth stages

30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

R2=0.902 R2= 0.804 R2= 0.681

F value=29.02* F value= 19.68* F value= 18.54*

Constant= -4.928 Constant= -7.843 Constant= -11.58

Parameters Co- efficient t- value Parameters Co- efficient t- value Parameters Co- efficient t- value

PH -2.84 -1.79 EC 8.04 2.42 OC 11.85 4.18

OC 17.18 4.36 OC 17.79 5.45 N 0.05 3.79

N 0.02 2.09 N 0.02 1.74 K 0.03 2.08

P 0.06 2.27 K 0.03 2.47

S -0.30 -2.19 Fe -1.81 -3.27

Fe -1.20 -2.37

B 12.26 3.44

56

57

Table 17: Correlation index (r) among pomegranate yield and leaf nutrient content at various crop growth stages

Yield and Major nutrients

Yield and Secondary nutrients

Yield and Micronutrients

Synergetic correlation among nutrients Antagonistic among nutrients

At bud differentiation stage

N 0.852** Ca 0.750** Mn 0.689** N & P 0.381* N & Mg 0.483** Cu & N -0.080

P 0.456* Mg 0.496** N & K 0.509** N & S 0.583** Cu & S -0.045

K 0.592** S 0.609** N & Ca 0.650** B & Ca 0.381* B & Zn -0.196

At fruit formation stage

N 0.871** Ca 0.625** Mn 0.546 N &P 0.590** N & Mg 0.559** Cu & N -0.215 Cu & S -0.183

P 0.631** Mg 0.553** N & K 0.519** N & S 0.596** Cu & Ca -0.207 B & Zn -0.109

K 0.542** S 0.660** N & Ca 0.593** B & Ca 0.487** Cu &Mg -0.321 B & Cu -0.118

At fruit maturation stage

N 0.853** Ca 0.593** Zn 0.516** N &K 0.515** N &S 0.520** Cu & N -0.380 Cu & S -0.346

K 0.593** Mg 0.686** B 0.729** N & Ca 0.549** N & Zn 0.439* Cu & Ca -0.276 B & Cu -0.449

S 0.602** N & Mg 0.667** B & Ca 0.619** Cu &Mg -0.509

N, P and K in (kg ha-1) Ca, Mg and S in (meq 100g-1) Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu and B in (mg kg-1) *p<0.05 **p<0.01

57

58

S (0.609), Mn (0.681) and B (0.637) at bud differentiation stage. The other nutrient

parameters viz., Fe (0.190), Cu (0.067) and Zn (0.10) were positively correlated with

yield but were not significant (Table 16).

The relationship among the nutrients were also positively correlated except in

Mg and S (-0.004), Cu and S (-0.045), Zn and B (-0.196) and Cu and N (-0.08) which

recorded negative relationship. However they were not significant.

Similar trend was observed at fruit formation and maturation with exception to

Cu content where, negative relationship was observed between Cu and yield recording

-0.236 and -0.440 at fruit formation and maturation stage respectively. However, the

significance was observed only at fruit maturation stage. Negative correlation was

observed between Cu and other plant nutrients except Mn. However, the significance

was only between Cu and N, Mg & B.

4.6.4 Regression analysis between pomegranate yield and leaf nutrient

content

The regression model between pomegranate yield and eleven nutrient content

in leaf at bud differentiation stage was as following,

Y = -7.66 + 3.40N-4.98P + 2.30K + 2.15 Ca + 5.29 Mg + 13.0 S + 0.04

Mn- 0.004 Fe- 0.02Zn-0.02Cu + 0.48B

The F ratio (13.40) was significant indicating the overall explanatory power of

the above equation and regression line explaining about 89.1 per cent (R2=0.891) of

variation in pomegranate yield by these independent variables. However, when all

these nutrient parameters were taken together, B (t=2.28) and S= (2.236) were

significant (t-value) and all other nutrient variables were insignificant as evident from

the low t-values, which indicate the impacts of these predictor nutrient variables.

However, negative impact was noticed from P, Fe, Zn and Cu nutrients at bud

differentiation stage. Thus, the above model was further screened to exclude some

unimportant or redundant variables in the equation by employing stepwise regression

analysis which yielded the following equation (Table 18).

59

Table 18: Regression model iterated for selected leaf nutrient content with pomegranate yield at different growth stages

30 DBT 70 DBT 210 DBT

R2= 0.881 R2= 0.835 R2= 0.809

F value= 35.55* F value= 43.73* F value= 57.17*

Constant= -8.062 Constant= -2.620 Constant= -3.823

Parameters Co- efficient t- value Parameters Co- efficient t- value Parameters Co- efficient t- value

N 4.51 3.36 N 9.01 7.53 N 9.57 6.27

K 2.86 1.95 B 0.46 2.70 B 0.68 3.38

Ca 2.83 1.97 S 10.78 1.94

S 9.20 2.34

B 0.43 3.07

59

60

Y= -8.06 + 4.51N + 2.86K + 2.83 Ca + 9.20 S + 0.43 B

In the above model both F (35.53) and t values were improved over the

previous model, which stated that the cumulative effect of total N, K, Ca, S and B

content in leaf accounted for about 88.1 per cent variation in pomegranate yield. The

significant positive relation was found between these variable on pomegranate yield.

The remaining about 11.9 per cent variation in the yield may be attributed to eliminate

variables viz., P, Mg, Mn, Fe, Zn and Cu that is explained by the above model.

Similarly the effects of leaf nutrient content at fruit formation and maturation

stage on pomegranate leaf were analyzed using backward stepwise multiple

regression models. At fruit formation stage (70DBT) significant positive (F=43.73)

effect was observed with N, B and S nutrients, that accounted for 83.5 per cent

variation in pomegranate yield (Y= -2.62 + 9.01N + 0.46B + 10.78S)

Similarly at fruit maturation stage only N and B (Y=-3.82 + 9.57N + 0.68B)

were positively and significantly influenced 80.9 per cent variation in pomegranate

yield.

61

5. DISCUSSION

The soils under pomegranate cultivation are dynamic in nature and vary in

their properties due to wide range of geographical and climatic conditions, parent

material and distinct management practices and regular manipulation of cultivation

practices by pomegranate farmers. Hence, wide variation is noticed with nutrient

availability and uptake by crop plants. This emphasizes need for understanding region

specific nutrient management practices and its effect on nutrient availability and

uptake by pomegranate plants and ultimately its effect on their productivity. In this

context, the present investigation was carried out to assess the soil and leaf nutrient

status of pomegranate orchards and its relation to pomegranate productivity in and

around Kaladagi village of Bagalkot taluka, a renowned pomegranate producing

region. The experimental results presented in the previous chapter are discussed in

this chapter.

5.1 Electrochemical properties of soils in pomegranate orchards

The soils of thirty pomegranate orchards selected for the present study posses

alkaline reaction however, its variation among different categories of orchards was

not significant (Table 4). The soil alkalinity may be attributed to parent material and

climatic condition of the area. These soils were originated from limestone. Carbonates

formed during weathering process tend to accumulate in the soil due to semi-arid

climatic condition and low rainfall. Further, the use of carbonate and bicarbonate rich

irrigation water might have resulted in their secondary accumulation in these soils

through precipitation process. Thus, the soils formed under these conditions were

relatively alkaline, possess large amounts of calcium and magnesium carbonates/

bicarbonates and lesser amounts of transition metal carbonate, like Iron (Fe), Zinc

(Zn) and Manganese (Mn) (Talibudeen, 1981).

The variation in electrical conductivity (EC) of soils was also insignificant

among different categories of orchards (Table 4). The EC values were well within the

safer limits. This might be attributed to sparingly soluble nature of CaCO3 which tend

occur in soil as filaments, nodules, seams and as part of the colloidal complex rather

in soil solution (Hamid, 2009). Thus, the adverse effect of soil salinity was not

pronounced in these orchards.

62

The organic carbon (OC) content of soil was higher in high yielding orchards

(0.89%) compared to medium yielding (0.79%) and low yielding (0.54%) orchards

(Table 4) at bud differentiation stage. This may be attributed to application of organic

manures during bahar treatment where, high amount of manure application was

recorded in high yielding orchards. With the advancement of crop growth the organic

carbon content of soil decreased and the lowest was recorded at 210 days after bahar

treatment (DBT). The decomposition of organic matter with advance of growth might

have discouraged carbon build up (Gelsomino et al., 2006). Further, the contribution

of pomegranate plant residue to soil organic carbon was found to be very low (Kumar

et al., 2009 and Awasti and Singh, 2010) since, most of the farmers follow clean

cultivation and burn the plant residues collected after defoliation to avoid plant

pathogens.

5.2 Major nutrients status in pomegranate orchards

5.2.1 Nitrogen

The amount of nitrogen applied to pomegranate plants varied significantly

among different orchards (Table 3). The highest amount was noticed in high yielding

(259.19 g plant-1) orchards followed by medium yielding (176.20 g plant-1) and low

yielding orchards (133.70 g plant-1). High variation was recorded with in the same

categories of orchards. However, the amount of N applied was far below the

recommended rate by different farm institutes (400-560 g plant-1). The interviews

with contact farmers revealed that, they were applying low N fertilizer to discourage

foliage growth and to enhance flowering. Also, they opined that N application

encourages diseases threat, especially the bacterial blight.

The concentration of nitrogen in pomegranate leaves indicate significantly

higher nitrogen content in high yielding orchards (1.74%) than medium (1.31%) and

low yielding (0.94%) orchards (Table 9) at bud differentiation stage. This may be

attributed to N application rate, where N application was low in medium and low

yielding orchards as compared to high yielding orchards. In high yielding orchards,

though the application was far below the optimum rate, relatively high amount

organic matter application was observed in these orchards that might have enhanced

N content in leaves (Gosh et al., 2012 and Kashyap et al., 2012). However, the per

63

cent N at bud differentiation stage (0.91-1.66%) in all categories of pomegranate

orchards were found to be in optimum range (Raghupathi and Bhargava, 1998b). But,

at fruit formation and maturation stage the N content of low yielding orchards

decreased to 0.89 and 0.82 per cent indicating its deficiency. However, the high

yielding orchards maintained the N content at higher levels (1.66 and 1.45 per cent at

70 and 210 DBT respectively). The studies of Gimenez et al. (2000) suggest leaf N

content of 1.40-1.70 per cent and 1.50-1.90 per cent as optimum for high production

of Mollar and Israli varieties of pomegranate.

The available Nitrogen content in soils was high in high yielding orchards at

all stages of crop growth as compared to medium and low yielding orchards (Table 5).

This signifies higher N supplying power of these orchard soils even after high N

concentration in plants. Relatively high rate of application of organic matter and

inorganic N fertilizer might have contributed to higher availability of nitrogen in these

soils (Saraf et al., 2001, Mir et al., 2013 and Kashyap et al., 2012) compared to other

orchards. But, the mean N availability (280-560 kg ha-1) was in medium level

(Tandon, 1992) recording 372.50 and 298.20 kg ha-1 at 30 and 70 DBT in high

yielding orchards and 329.10 kg ha-1 in medium yielding orchards at 30 DBT. Further

more, at all other stages the N availability was in low level indicating its deficiency in

pomegranate orchards. Similar finding of low N status in pomegranate orchards was

recorded by Raghupati and Bhargwa (1998a), Kumar et al., 2009 and Awasti and

Singh (2010).

5.2.2 Phosphorus

The amount of phosphorus applied to pomegranate orchards varied to larger

extent in low yielding orchards ranging from 187.70 to 536 kg ha-1 (Table 3).

However, the mean P application rates among different categories of orchards were

statistically on par. The cumulative information collected from farmers indicated use

of inorganic fertilizers containing high amount of P viz., di-ammonium phosphate as

soil applicant during bahar treatment and mono potassium phosphate (0:52:34),

during flowering and fruit formation stage mono potassium phosphate through

fertigation. Some farmers have used phosphoric acid for cleaning of drip lines that

added to relatively higher rate of P application than the recommended dose (125-250

g plant-1, Anon, 2013b, Anon, 2011).

64

The P content in pomegranate leaves did not vary significantly among

different orchards (Table 9). Relatively higher amount of P (0.22%) was observed in

high yielding orchards that increased slightly during fruit formation stage and

decreased in fruit maturation stage. However, the P content (0.12-0.18%) was found

to be in optimum range (Raghupati and Bhargava, 1998b), even with high rate of P

application. This could be due to alkaline nature of soil that might have precipitated

applied P into insoluble calcium phosphates viz., di- calcium phosphate, tri- calcium

phosphate, octa- calcium phosphates and hydroxyl apatite (Wastermann and Leytem,

2003, Abdou, 2006 and Bertnand et al., 2006). The data on soil available P also

signifies the slower build up of P, indicating mean P in medium level (22.90 -56.3 kg

ha-1; Tandon 1992). However, variations among different categories of pomegranate

orchards were insignificant (Table 5). But, wide variation was noticed within the same

category of pomegranate orchards. The soil P decreased with advancement of crop

growth recorded the lowest residual P after harvest of fruit. This decrease in P may be

due to crop uptake and subsequent precipitation with soil cations especially with Ca

(Delgado et al., 2002). Kumar et al. (2009) and Awasthi and Singh (2010) also

reported low to medium P status in soils of pomegranate orchards of Rajasthan region.

5.2.3 Potassium

The amount of potassium applied to the pomegranate orchards did not vary

significantly among different categories of orchards (Table 3). However, large

variation was noticed within the same categories of orchard. Compared to N and P,

potassium application was found to be on par with recommendation (125-250 g

plant-1) by farm institutes. Most of the farmers were applying K through MOP and

SOP to soil during bahar treatment. Potassium was also applied through fertigation

using mono potassium phosphate (0:52:34) and SOP (0:0:50) during flowering and

fruit initiation stage and as foliar application during fruit formation and maturation

stage.

The accumulation of K in pomegranate leaves was found to vary significantly,

even though, it’s input rate was insignificant among different categories of orchards.

High yielding orchards recorded highest amount (1.74%) of K in leaves as compared

to medium (1.56%) and low (1.38%) yielding orchards (Table 9). Relatively high N

content in high yielding orchards might have stimulated higher K accumulation in

65

leaf. Synergistic effect of optimum supply of nitrogen in soil and plants with K uptake

was reported by Malvi (2011).

However, the K content in leaves irrespective of their yield levels were found

to be in optimum- high range (0.61-1.59%; Raghupati and Bhargawa 1998b, Sheikh

and Rao 2005, Khayyat et al., 2012 and Kashyap et al., 2012). The potassium content

in leaves increased during fruit initiation stage and later decreased during fruit

maturation stage. The continued application of potassium through fertigation and

foliar spray might have enhanced its content in leaves (Tehranifer and Teber, 2009

and Dixit et al., 2013) during early development stages while, at fruit maturation stage

higher potassium reserve in fruits was observed than in leaves (Raghupati and

Bhargava 1998a).

The available K was significantly higher in soils of medium (356.90 kg ha-1)

and high yielding (350.1 kg ha-1) orchards as compared to low yielding orchards

(281.60 kg ha-1) and found to decrease with advancement of crop growth stage (Table

5). However, potassium levels were in medium level (144-336 kg ha-1, Tondon, 1992)

in soils signifying its optimum supplying power even with high uptake of K by

pomegranate plants. The presence of potassium bearing minerals viz., muscovite,

biotite and feldspar and clay minerals viz., montmorillite containing higher CEC

might be responsible for maintaining optimum K level in these soils (Ghosh and

Hassan, 1979, Malvi, 2011) besides, its high rate of application through fertilizers.

5.3 Secondary nutrients status in pomegranate orchards

5.3.1 Calcium

The role of Ca in pomegranate productivity and quality was emphasized by

many workers especially in strengthening cell wall there by reducing the fruit splitting

(Hepaskoey et al., 2000, Sheikh and Manjula 2012, Ahmed et al., 2014, Prakash and

Balakrishna 2014). In the present investigation, Ca content in pomegranate leaves was

significantly high in high (1.91-1.64%) and medium (1.70-1.55%) yielding orchards

as compared to low (1.37-1.26%) yielding orchards at all stages of crop growth (Table

10). However, its optimum level indicated by many researchers varied recording 2.14-

2.45 per cent and 0.66-1.50 per cent in high yielding Israeli and Mollar pomegranate

66

varieties (Gimenze et al., 2000), 1.48-1.78 per cent in fruit splitting resistant variety

(Hepaskoey et al., 2000) and 0.77-2.02 per cent by Raghupati and Bhargava (1998b).

However, all studies indicated better yield and fruit quality with higher concentration

of Ca in pomegranate leaves.

The Calcium content in soils did not differ significantly among different

categories of orchards (Table 6). However, all soils showed dominance of Ca on

exchangeable sites. This could be ascribed to soil pH and parent material (Talibudeen,

1981). Alkaline soils possess high base saturation of which the proportion of Ca to

other exchangeable cations (Mg, K and H) is relatively high in the soils (Rizea and

Florea, 2007) developed on lime stone.

5.3.2 Magnesium

The magnesium content in pomegranate leaves did not vary significantly in

the early stage of crop growth among different categories of orchards (Table 10).

With advancement of crop growth, high yielding (0.51 and 0.39% at 70 and 210 DBT

respectively) orchards recorded significantly higher magnesium content than low

yielding orchards (0.40 and 0.29% at 70 and 210 DBT respectively).

The soil magnesium content did not differ significantly among various

categories (Table 6). However, their content was found to be optimum in soils (>1.00

meq 100 g-1) as well as in leaves (0.16-0.42%; Raghupati and Bhargava 1998b and

0.3 - 0.38% - Gimenze et al., 2000). Relatively high amount of Mg at bud

differentiation stage in high yielding orchards may be attributed to optimum supply of

N in these orchards. Nitrogen stimulates the uptake of Mg from soils (Malvi, 2011).

However, at later stages of crop growth foliar application of MgSO4 might have also

influenced Mg accumulation (Ahmed et al., 2014). Usually farmers apply 5-6 sprays

of MgSO4 (@ 2-5 g L-1) during fruit formation stage. The low Mg content in low

yielding orchards might be due to relatively high Ca and low N content in these

plants. Mengal and Kirkby (1967) and Malvi (2011) reported antagonistic

interrelationships between Ca and Mg in soil and synergistic relation between N and

Mg in plant system.

67

5.3.3 Sulphur

Sulphur content in pomegranate leaves varied significantly among different

categories of orchards at all growth stages recording highest in high yielding orchards

(0.288%) at bud differentiation as compared to medium (0.22%) and low (0.124%)

yielding orchards (Table 10).

In soil, significantly high available S content was observed in medium (15.67

mg kg-1) and high (15.26 mg kg-1) yielding orchards as compared to low yielding

(11.60 mg kg-1) orchards at bud differentiation stage (Table 6). With advancement of

crop growth, the available S content decreased to below optimum level (< 10ppm,

Tandon, 1992). The application of organic matter and sulfate of potash during bahar

treatment might have added S to soil during early growth stage. With advancement of

crop growth, uptake of S by plants, precipitation of SO42- with free Ca as sparingly

soluble CaSO4 and leaching of anionic SO42- might have reduced the S content to

critical level after the fruit harvest.

The S content in pomegranate leaf at advance stage (70 and 210 DBT) of crop

growth decreased as compared to bud differentiation stage. Low yielding orchards

recorded below the optimum level of S (0.16-0.26%; Raghupati and Bhargava 1998b)

at all stages of crop growth (0.124, 0.098 and 0.076 per cent at 30, 70 and 210 DBT

respectively). This may be due to low S supplying power of these orchard soils.

Kumar et al. (2ss009) observed lower leaf S content (0.195%) in pomegranate

orchards that had low soil S (ppm). Significantly, higher S content in medium and

high yielding orchards may be attributed to relatively high S content in soil at early

stages of crop growth. Later at advance growth stages, foliar application of sulphate

salts of micronutrients (MgSO4 and ZnSO4) might have enhanced its accumulation in

foliage (Bambal et al., 1991, Mohamed et al., 2014 and Hasani, 2012).

5.4 Micronutrients status in pomegranate orchards

5.4.1 Zinc

Zinc content in pomegranate leaves at 30 and 70 DBT and Zn in soils did not

vary significantly among different categories of pomegranate orchard (Table 11).

Majority of the farmers irrespective of yield levels, apply ZnSO4 to soil (25-50 g

68

plant-1) during bahar treatment thus, Zn content in soil was greater than critical level

(0.60 ppm, Tandon, 1992) even under alkaline pH condition of soils (Table 7).

Raghupati and Bhargava (1998a) also observed 1.19 mg kg-1 of Zn in soils of

pomegranate orchards in Bijapur district, Karnataka with soil pH ranging from

7.51-8.78.

The leaf Zn content was significantly higher in high yielding (16.53 mg kg-1)

as compared to low yielding (12.39 mg kg-1) orchards at fruit maturation stage.

This may be attributed to foliar sprays (ZnSO4; 0.2-0.5g L-1) during fruit formation to

ripening stage. Relatively higher Zn accumulation in pomegranate leaves of high

yielding orchards may be attributed to foliar sprays (Bambal et al., 1991, Gimenez

et al., 2000 and Ahmed et al., 2014) and optimum N supply that stimulates higher Zn

accumulation (Mengal et al., 2011 and Malvi, 2011).

5.4.2 Iron

Iron content in leaves and soils of different pomegranate orchards did not

show significant variation among different categories of pomegranate orchards (Table

11). In general, the Fe content in leaves was in optimum level (71-214 mg kg-1;

Raghupati and Bhargava 1998b) and DTPA-Fe in soils were above critical level

(2.5mg kg-1; Tandon, 1992) (Table 7). Marginally, higher amount of Fe was observed

in high yielding orchards as compared to medium and low yielding orchards,

indicating the synergistic effect of N supply and uptake by pomegranate on Fe

assimilation in these orchards (Malvi, 2011). Relatively higher Fe uptake in these

orchards might have marginally reduced DTPA-Fe content in soils at later stages of

crop growth.

5.4.3 Manganese

Manganese content in pomegranate leaves varied significantly among different

categories of orchards. High (71.56 mg kg-1) and medium (67.11 mg kg-1) yielding

orchards recorded significantly higher Mn content as compared to low yielding (54.87

mg kg-1) orchards that decreased with advancement of crop growth (Table 11).

Similarly, DTPA-Mn content in soil was significantly higher in soils of high and

medium yielding orchards at all the stages of crop growth compared to low yielding

69

orchards, despite higher up take rate (Table 7). The reason is obscure. The soils of

these orchards were alkaline in nature, still had relatively higher amount of Mn

(greater than critical level of 2.0 ppm; Tandon, 1992). Probably these soils might have

contained Mn bearing minerals which usually occur as in hydroxide forms viz.,

mangnosite, manganite, pyrolusite pyrochroite, etc. (Post, 1999) and organic matter

might also so have contributed to their availability (Talibudeen, 1981).

5.4.4 Copper

The variation in copper content of pomegranate leaves and DTPA-Cu in soil

were insignificant at all stages of crop growth (Table 12 and 8). However, there was

build up of copper content in leaves with advancement of crop growth, recording as

high as 54.44 mg kg-1 in low yielding orchards at 210 DBT. This could be attributed

to use of copper based pesticides viz., copper oxychloride (COC), copper hydroxide

and Bordeaux mixture as preventive and curative sprays for disease management.

However, still the copper content in leaves was within the optimum levels 29-72 mg

kg-1 (Raghupati and Bhargava, 1998b) and its toxicity symptom was not observed in

any of the orchards.

5.4.5 Boron

The boron content in pomegranate leaves varied significantly among different

categories of pomegranate orchards recording the highest B content in high yielding

orchards followed by medium and low yielding orchards (Table 12). Boron content

increased slightly at fruit formation stage compared to bud differentiation stage and

later decreased in fruit maturation stage. However, B content in soil did not differ

significantly at any stages of crop growth (Table 8). Most of the farmers apply

borax (10-20 g) to soil during the bahar treatment. The foliar application of borax

(1-2 g L-1) at fruit initiation to fruit formation stage (2-3 sprays) was followed by few

farmers that might have resulted in high accumulation of B in leaves. Similar

finding of enhanced B content with foliar spray was reported by Bambal et al., 1991,

Gimenez et al., 2000, Khalil and Aly 2013, Sarafi et al., 2014 and Ahmed et al.,

2014).

70

5.5 Pomegranate yield parameters

5.5.1 Number of fruits per plant

Number of fruits on each plant is one of the important yield parameters in

pomegranate plants. However, depending on the plant vigour and canopy farmers

regulate number of fruits on each plant. Optimum fruit number helps for developing

good size and quality of fruits. It is recommended to retain 60-80 fruits in fully grown

up trees (Anon, 2014). In the present investigation, significantly higher number of

fruits was retained in the high yielding orchards (71-81) compared to medium (65-74)

and low yielding (58-66). The better canopy growth with optimum supply of nutrients

in high yielding orchards could sustain higher number of fruits, which might have

resulted in higher fruit yield in these orchards.

5.5.2 Fruit weight (g fruit-1)

Fruit weight is an important quality parameter for grading and marketing in

pomegranate. In the present investigation, high yielding orchards recorded

significantly higher fruit weight of 342.0 g compared to medium (256.20 g) and low

(224.10 g) yielding orchards. Pomegranate fruit weight is governed by many factors

of which number of fruits, fruit position and climatic condition are some of the

important external factors. In high yielding orchards, though the numbers of fruits was

high they found to be optimum and the fruits retained on lower portion of branches

found to have higher weight and size compared to fruits on top portion. The climatic

condition was also congenial, recording moderate temperature (< 30º C) during fruit

formation. All these might have extended positive influence over fruit weight.

Besides, mineral nutrition plays a significant role in fruit quality. In present

investigation, higher nutrient concentration of N, K, Ca, S, Mn, Zn and B in

pomegranate leaves might have attributed to better fruit weight in high yielding

pomegranate orchards. All these nutrients have manifested into good crop growth,

fruit set and development that ultimately produced good quality fruits. (Sheikh and

Rao 2005, Rao and subramanyam 2009, Khayyat et al., 2012, Mir et al., 2013, Rao

and Mohammed et al., 2014 and Ray et al., 2014).

71

5.6 Pomegranate yield and its association with major nutrient

inputs

The pooled data of major nutrient input through inorganic fertilizer showed

significant variation among different orchards with respect to nitrogen alone while,

variation in rate of P and K application was insignificant (Table 3). High yielding

orchards received significantly higher amount (251.9 g plant-1) of N through fertilizers

viz., di-ammonium phosphate and 19:19:19 compared to medium (176.2 g plant-1) and

low yielding orchards (133.7 g plant-1). The positive (r2= 0.784) relationship was

found between pomegranate yield and rate of N application (Fig. 2), signifying its

crucial role in enhancing pomegranate yield. Most of the farmers are hesitant in use of

N fertilizer and they opined that N application favours vegetative growth and

discourages flowering. Further, the N enhances the susceptibility to disease

occurrence. The rate of P application had no significant influence over the

pomegranate yield however, insignificant positive relation (r2= 0.074) was observed

between these variables (Fig. 2). This could be attributed to high rate of P application

in all the orchards. Farmers were applying high amount P bearing fertilizers viz.,

di-ammonium phosphate, mono potassium phosphate etc., to avoid N. However, the

alkalinity nature of soil discouraged P build up and high amount of P uptake by crops.

The insignificant positive relationship (r2= 0.222) was observed between K nutrient

input to pomegranate yield. The farmers were very well convinced about the role of K

in improving fruit set and quality, hence medium and high yielding orchards received

the K equal to higher rates of recommendation (200 g plant-1) by different farm

institutes. Low yielding orchards recorded relatively low amounts of K (187.17 g

plant-1).

5.7 Pomegranate yield and its association with soil nutrient

parameters

It is difficult to study the relationship between the soil parameters with

pomegranate yield as soil variables they indicate residual nutrient level after the crop

uptake. However, they may be considered as predictive parameters and may indicate

the nutrient supply power of soil.

72

Fig. 2: Relationship between pomegranate yield and major nutrient

application in different categories of orchards

73

The regression model (Table 14) at bud differentiation stage showed

significant positive impact of OC, B, N and P on pomegranate yield, signifying the

high supplying power of pomegranate soils for said nutrient. However, Soil pH, S and

Fe had negative values, indicating alkaline soil pH as a barrier for higher pomegranate

production and mining of S and Fe in these soils.

In the present study, OC, N and K levels in soil significantly and positively

influenced pomegranate yield at all stages of crop growth (Table 13), emphasizing

their role in higher pomegranate productivity (Saraf et al., 2001, Shiekh and Rao,

2005, Mir et al., 2013, Mohamed et al., 2014, Ray et al., 2014). Optimum supply of

nutrients in soil is a key factor for obtaining better crop yield. In the present

investigation, application of organic matter, nitrogen, potassium and boron found to

play critical role in availability of these nutrients in soil and further their uptake by

pomegranate plants. However, availability of some nutrients was decreased with

advance of crop growth viz., N, S, B, Zn and Fe, which emphasizes their optimum

application for succeeding crop to have higher pomegranate productivity (Raghupathi

and Bhargava 1998b and Awasti and Singh 2010).

The regression model between pomegranate yield and nitrogen as single

independent variable indicated significant contribution of N ranging from 60.9 to 34.8

per cent at all growth stages on yield (Fig. 3) and K recorded 16 to 29 per cent

variation on yield (Fig. 4).

5.8 Pomegranate yield and its association with leaf nutrient

parameters

In the present investigation, the pomegranate orchards were categorized into

low (< 11.5 t ha-1), medium (11.5 to 15.5 t ha-1) and high (> 15.5 t ha-1) yielding

orchards based on their yield levels and studied for its association with plant nutrient

levels.

High yielding orchards recorded higher content of N, K, Ca, S, Mn and B

compared to low yielding orchards at all stages of crop growth. In broad sense, the

pomegranate yield was positively influenced by these nutrient parameters resulting in

higher state of production. Though all seventeen nutrients are essential and indispensible

74

Fig. 3: Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and Available N

(kg ha-1) in soil at different growth stages

210 DBT

75

Fig. 4: Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and Available K

(kg ha-1) at different growth stages

76

for growth and production of any crop, but the nutrient management practices over the

time may create an imbalance and make some nutrients critical for crop growth and

yield. In the present investigation among the major nutrients, N was found to have

critical role in pomegranate production. Most of the farmers had applied low rate of

organic manures and nitrogenous fertilizer. This resulted in lower N content in

pomegranate leaves ultimately affecting yield as evident in low yielding orchards.

The optimum supply of N has stimulated the uptake of other essential nutrients

viz., P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn and B (Mengle et al., 2001 and Malvi, 2011) as evident in

high yielding orchards resulting in enhanced yield of pomegranate. The correlation

matrix also signifies the positive significant correlation between nitrogen content in

pomegranate leaves with other nutrient contents (Table 15) irrespective of crop

growth stages.

The regression models also emphasize the impact of N content on

pomegranate yield. About 65.0 per cent variation in pomegranate yield was explained

by nitrogen as single independent variable (Fig. 5) at bud differentiation stage.

Similarly, at fruit formation (r2=0.688) and maturation (r2=0.671) stages also the N

was found influence significantly on pomegranate yield (Fig. 5).

The multiple regression models with pomegranate yield and nutrient content in

leaves indicates N is one of the important nutrients that is significantly influencing

pomegranate yield at all stages of crop growth. The variation in N content might

affect 4.51 to 9.57 times the pomegranate yield (Table 16). Many researchers

emphasized the role of N in plant metabolism (Agarwal and Sharma 1976, Sharma et

al., 2014 and Childer, 1996) in general and on pomegranate growth and productivity

in particular (Shiekh and Rao, 2005, Rao and Subramanyam, 2009, Mohamed et al.,

2014 and Ray et al., 2014).

The phosphorus application was found to be in higher rate in most of the

orchards. However, P accumulation in plant did not exert any negative impact on

assimilation of other plant nutrients at early stages of crop growth. Phosphorus is

highly essential for root growth and known to stimulate uptake of nutrients (Sharma et

al., 2014). However, excessive amount of P reduces uptake of some cationic

micronutrients viz., Fe, Zn, Mn & Cu (Malvi, 2011). In the present investigation P

77

Fig. 5: Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf nitrogen

(%) at different growth stages

30 DBT

78

recorded negative correlation (Table 16) with Zn and Cu, only at fruit maturation

stage however, was not significant. The regression model indicated insignificant

negative impact of P on yield only at bud differentiation stage. This emphasized,

though P was applied at higher rate, its accumulation in plant did not exert any

significant negative impact on growth and yield and found to be in optimum level

(Raghupathi and Bhargava, 1998b). The alkaline pH condition precipitates applied P

into plant unavailable thus, reducing its excess accumulation in plant (Serrao et al.,

1998, Delgado et al., 2002 and Fuleky 2006).

Significant positive relation was observed between potassium content in leaf

to pomegranate yield at all stages of crop growth (Table 15). Amongst, the nutrients

analyzed potassium concentration was highest in pomegranate leaves in most of the

orchards. This signifies high amount of K requirement for pomegranate (Kashyap et

al., 2012). The variation in pomegranate yield was not significantly related when

studied along with other nutrients, as depicted in multiple regression model (Table

16). This may be attributed to relatively high rate of potassium application through

inorganic fertilizers in most of the orchards (Table 3). Potassium plays vital role in

increasing pomegranate yield and fruit quality (Shiekh and Rao 2005, Kashyap et al.,

2012 and Mohamed et al., 2014).

The secondary nutrient content in pomegranate leaves was significantly and

positively related to pomegranate yield at all stages of crop growth, as revealed in

correlation matrix analysis (Table 15). However, when the cumulative effect of

nutrients was considered in multiple regression analysis (Table 16), only sulphur was

turned out to be an important nutrient in explaining the most variations in

pomegranate yield among the secondary nutrients. Even the regression models with S

as single independent nutrient parameter against yield signified about 40.6 to 48.3

per cent variation (Fig. 6). Sulphur is usually deficient in alkaline soils and

responds to sulphur application resulting in improved yield and quality (Skwierawska

et al., 2008).

Amongst the micronutrients, B was found to be the most important nutrient

that was critically influencing the variation in pomegranate yield at all stages of crop

growth (Table 15). The correlation index also signified positive relationship of

B with pomegranate yield (Table 15). Most of the linear regression models with B as

79

Fig. 6: Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf sulphur

(%) at different growth stages

80

independent nutrient element against yield also reveal its positive contribution

(ranging from 37 to 51 per cent) to variation in pomegranate yield (Fig. 7) and quality

studies reported enhanced productivity and of pomegranate with B application

(Khalil and Aly, 2013, Tehrnifer and Taber, 2009). In the present investigation

application of borax either to soil or through foliar spray has resulted in

higher accumulation of B in pomegranate leaves (Table 16) and positively contributed

to yield.

The correlation matrix indicated insignificant positive relationship between

pomegranate yield and other micronutrients viz., Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu at bud

differentiation stage (Table 16). But, at fruit formation stage and maturation stage Cu

showed negative relationship with yield. The regression analysis also insignificant

negative impact of Cu at all stages. Fe and Zn content influenced negatively at early

stage of crop growth, but with advancement of crop their effects were positive on

yield. However, the low t- values indicated the yield variation is insignificant and less

meaningful with these parameters.

81

Fig. 7: Relationship between pomegranate yield (t ha-1) and leaf boron (%)

at different growth stages

82

6. SUMMARY

The Present research work on" Evaluation of soil and plant nutrient status in

relation to pomegranate productivity" was carried on randomly selected thirty

pomegranate orchards, located in five villages viz., Govinakoppa, Kaladagi,

Sokanadagi, Chiksamshi and Hiresamshi of Bagalkot taluka, Karnataka. The three

major crieteria viz., Bhagwa variety, crop age (3-7 years) and hasta bahar season were

considered in selection of the orchards. The contact farmers were periodically

interviewed with pre-developed questionnaire and orchards were visited periodically

to collect the required information and samples and analyzed using standard protocol.

For ease of study, pomegranate orchards were categorized into low (<11.1

t ha-1), medium (11.10 to 15.50 t ha-1) and high yielding (>15.5 t ha-1). Depending on

their yield levels, thirteen orchards were grouped under low category with mean yield

of 9.42 t ha-1 (8.3-10.13 t ha-1) and 9 orchards under medium (11.50 -14.50 t ha-1) and

8 orchards in high yielding (15.5-22.0 t ha-1) category.

The nutrient composition of pomegranate leaves varied significantly among

different categories of orchards. Significantly, high concentrations of N, K, Ca, Mg,

S, Mn and B were observed in high yielding orchards as compared to low yielding

orchards and their concentration were relatively high during early stage of crop

growth as compared to fruit maturation stage. Medium yielding orchards accumulated

relatively higher amounts of Zn and Cu at bud differentiation stage. However, the

concentration of Cu in pomegranate leaves increased with advancement of crop

growth and relatively higher concentration was observed in low yielding orchards.

Visual symptoms of deficiency or toxicity of nutrients were not noticed pomegranate

leaves in any orchards.

The electro-chemical properties of soil showed considerable variation among

different categories of orchards. In general, the soils were alkaline but had safer levels

soluble salts load. The organic carbon content was significantly higher in high

yielding orchards compared to low yielding orchards at all stages of crop growth.

High yielding orchards contained high available of N, K, S, Mn and B while available

Ca, Mg, Cu and Fe were relatively higher in low yielding orchards. The variation in

nutrient availability may be attributed nutrient management practices followed by the

83

pomegranate growing farmers. Relatively higher amount of organic matter N, S and B

containing fertilizer application was noticed in high yielding orchards as compared to

low yielding orchards.

The nutrient dynamics in soil and their concentration in pomegranate leaves

influenced yield parameters of pomegranate recording significantly higher number of

fruits, fruit weight (43-51 and 312.80-364.20 g plant-1) respectively in high yielding

orchards compared to low yielding orchards (38-44 fruits) and (206-243 g plant-1).

The correlation matrix indicated significant positive relationship between yield

and N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn and B at all stages of crop growth except at fruit

maturation which indicate insignificant positive association of Mn and P with yield.

Only Cu was found to have significant negative correlation with yield at fruit

formation and maturation stage. The availability of N, K, Mn, B and organic carbon

content in soil was positively related to pomegranate yield.

The various multiple regression models obtained in the present investigation

indicated N, B and S are the critical plant nutrient variables explain most of the

variations in pomegranate yield. Potassium and calcium were also some of the

important variables influencing positively on pomegranate yield at early stage of crop

growth. Copper was the single nutrient factor which had negative impact on yield at

all crop growth stage, however was insignificant.

Similarly in soil, the regression equations indicated OC, N and K as critical

soil variables explaining most variations in pomegranate yield followed by B and S.

However, pH has negatively influenced the yield and indicated deficiency of S and Fe

in soil.

In the present investigation, it was observed that the farmers were applying

nitrogen far below the recommended levels (400-625 g plant-1depending on crop age)

that has predominant role in deciding the productivity of pomegranate. Low rate of N

(107g plant-1) and organic manure application has resulted in relatively low available

nitrogen and its deficiency in pomegranate leaves at later stages of crop growth in low

yielding orchards. Phosphorus application was greater than the recommended levels

(125-250 g plant-1) and K was on par with the recommended levels (125-250 g plant-1)

by different farm institutes. However, the negative impact of excess application of P

84

was not pronounced due to soil alkalinity. The micronutrient application could not be

quantified in the present studies due to varied sources and multiple numbers of sprays

adopted by the farmers. The quantification of micronutrients, bio-fertilizer and

organic manure in further studies would greatly help in clear understanding of role of

nutrients in pomegranate productivity. Also, dynamics of nutrients in pomegranate

physiology, reproduction (viz., flowering patter- male, female and intermediate

flowers and fruit setting) and fruit quality has to be focused in future studies to

emerge sustainable nutrient management practices and to enhance pomegranate

productivity.

85

REFERENCES

Abdou, A. S., 2006, Effect of applied elemental sulphur and sulphur-oxidizing

bacteria (Paracoccus versutus) into calcareous sandy soils on the availability

of native and applied phosphorus and some micronutrients. In: 18th World

Congress of Soil Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Agarwala, S. C. and Sharma, C. P., 1976, Plant nutrients-their functions and uptake.

Soil Fertility Theory and Practice (Es. J. S. Kanwar) ICAR, New Delhi,

pp.7-64.

Ahmed, F. F., Mohamed, M. M., Abou El-Khashab, A. M. A. and Aeed, S. H. A.,

2014, Controlling the fruit splitting and improving productivity of

manfalouty pomegranate trees by using salicylic acid and some nutrients.

World Rural Observations, 6 (1) : 87-93.

Ahmed, T., Reddy, B. V. C., Khan, A. T., Govindaraj, G. and Kulkarni, S., 2015,

Economics and employment generating potential of gherkin cultivation in

Karnataka. Economic affairs, 60 (2) : 277-282.

Anonymous, 2013a, National Horticulture Board, pp. 114-117.

Anonymous, 2011, National Research Centre on Pomegranate, Sholapur, pp.26-27.

Anonymous, 2013b, Pomegranate, Package of practice. University of Horticultural

Sciences, Bagalkot, pp. 32-35.

Anonymous, 2014, National Research Centre on Pomegranate, Sholapur

Aseri, G. K., Jian, N., Panwar, J., Rao, A.V. and Meghwal, A.V., 2008, Biofertilizers

improve plant growth, fruit yield, nutrition, metabolism and rhizosphere

enzyme activities of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in Indian Thar

Desert. Scientia Horticulture, 117: 130-135.

Awasthi, O. P. and Singh, I. S., 2010, Effect of ber and pomegranate plantation on

soil nutrient of typic torripsamments. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 67:

138-142.

86

Balakrishnan, K., Vekatesan, K. and Sambandamurthis, S., 1996, Effect of foliar

application of Zn, Fe, Mn and B on yield quantity of pomegranate, cv.

Ganesh. Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 24: 33–35.

Balamohan, T. N., Nayaki, D. A., Rajagopalan, R. and Sivanantham, M., 2001,

Evaluation of popular pomegranate varieties under sodic soils. South Indian

Horticulture, 49: 360–336.

Bambal, S. B., Wavhal, K. N. and Nasralkar, S. D., 1991, Effect of foliar application

of micro nutrients on fruit quality and yield of pomegranate (Punica

granatum L.) cv. Ganesh. Maharashtra Journal of Horticulture, 5: 32–36.

Baviskar, M. N., Bharad, S. C., Mali, D.V. and Chavan, S.P., 2014, Effect of organics

and inorganic nutrient sources on nutrient status and fruit yield of sapota

orchard. PKY Res. J. 38 (1) : 123-125.

Black, C. A., 1965, Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Agronomy monograph No. 9,

American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 15-72.

Balakrishnan, K., Vekatesan, K. and Sambandamurthis, S., 1996, Effect of foliar

application of Zn, Fe, Mn and B on yield quantity of pomegranate, cv.

Ganesh. Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 24: 33–35.

Bopath, M. G. and Srivastava, K. C., 1982, Effect of different level of nitrogen on

Coorg mandarin raised on poncirus trifoliatc rootstock. Indian Journal of

Horticulture, 30: 134-136.

Berger, K. C. and Truog, E., 1939, Boron determination in soils and plants. Industrial

and Engineering Chemistry Analytical Edition, 11: 540-545.

Bertrand, I., Mc- Laughlin, M. J., Holloway, R. E., Armstrong, R. D. and Mc-Beath,

T., 2006, Changes in P bioavailability induced by the application of liquid

and powder sources of P, N and Zn fertilizers in alkaline soils. Nutrient

cycling in Agroecosystem, 74 (1) : 27-40.

87

Chauhan, S. K., 2013, Pomegranate grown in drip and furrow irrigation system in

saline water condition of semi-arid areas. TECHNOFAME- A Journal of

Multidisciplinary Advance Research, 2 (1) : 124-126.

Childer, N. F., 1966, Fruit nutrition. Horticultural Publication, Rutgers State

University, Nichol- Avenue, New Bransuick, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Dahal, H. and Routray, J. K., 2011, Identifying associations between soil and

production variables using linear multiple regression models. The Journal of

Agriculture and Environment, 12: 27-37.

Dev, G., 1998, Balanced fertiliser use increases crop yield and profit. Better Crops

International, 12 (2) : 26-27.

Delgado, A., Antonio, M., Kase, S., Luis, A. and Maria, C. C., 2002, Phosphorus

fertilizer recovery from calcareous soils amended with humic and fulvic

acids. Plant and soil, 245: 277-286.

Devarpanah, S., Akbari, M., Askari, M. A., Babalar, M. and Naddaf, M. E., 2013,

Effect of iron foliar application (Fe-EDDHA) on quantitative and qualitative

characteristics of pomegranate cv. "Malas–e-Saveh". World of science

Journal, 04: 179-187.

Dixit, A., Shaw, S. S. and Pal, V., 2013, Effect of micro nutrients and plant growth

regulators on fruiting of litchi. Hort flora Research Spectrum, 2 (1) : 77-80.

Eiada and Mustafa 2013, Effect of foliar Application with manganese and zinc on

pomegranate growth, yield and fruit quality. Journal of Horticultural

Science and Ornamental Plants, 5 (1) : 41-45.

Fuleky, G., 2006, P supply of typical hungarian soils. Agrokemia es Talajtan, 55 (1) :

117-126.

Gelsomino, A., Badalucco, L., Landi, L. and Cacco, G., 2006, Soil carbon, nitrogen

and phosphorus dynamics as affected by solarisation alone or combined with

organic amendment. Plant and soil, 279 (1-2) : 307-325.

Ghosh, A. B. and Hassan, R, 1979, Available Phosphorus status of soils of India. Bull.

Indian Society of Soil Sciences, 12:1.

88

Ghosh, S.N., Bera, B., Roy, S. and Kundu, A., 2012, Integrated nutrient management

in pomegranate grown in laterite soil. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 69 (3)

: 333-337.

Gimenez, M., Martinez, M., Oltra, M. A., Martinez, J. J. and Ferrandez, M., 2000,

Pomegraante (Punica granatum L.) leaf analysis:correlation with harvest.

CIHEAM-options Mediterraneennes, pp.179-185.

Hamid, Y. S. A. 2009, Dissolution kinetics of carbonates in soil. Ph.D thesis, Szent

Istvan university, Hangery.

Hasani, M., Zamani, Z., Savaghebi, G. and Fatahi, R., 2012, Effects of zinc and

manganese as foliar spray on pomegranate yield, fruit quality and leaf

minerals. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2 (3) : 471-480.

Hepaksoy, S., Aksoy, U., Can, H. Z. and UI, M. A., 2000, Determination of

relationship between fruit cracking and some physiological responses, leaf

characteristics and nutritional status of some pomegranate varieties.

CIHEAM- Options Mediterraneennes, pp; 87-92.

Hamouda, Elham, H. A., Motty, Z. A. and Zahran, N.G., 2015, Nutritional status and

improving fruit quality by potassium, magnesium and manganese foliar

application in pomegranate shrubs. International Journal of ChemTech

Research, 8 (6) : 858-867.

Hodges, D. W., Forney, C. F. and Wismer, W. V., 2001, Antioxidant responses in

harvested leaves of two cultivars of spinach differering in senescence rate.

Journal of Ameican Horticulture Science, 126: 611-617.

Idate, G. M., Chaudhari. S. M. and More, T. A., 2001, Fertilization in pomegranate

(Punica grantum L.) South Indian Horticulture, 49: 69–70.

Jackman, R. L. and Stanley, D. W., 1995, Perspectives in the textural evaluation of

plant foods- trends. Food Science 6: 186-194.

Jackson, M. L., 1973, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.,

New Delhi.

89

Kaneko, S., Ishil, T. and Matsung, T., 1997, A boron rhamnoyalcafuronan II-

complex from bamboo shot cell walls. Phytochemistry, 49: 243- 248.

Karimi, H. R. and Hasanpour, Z., 2014, Effects of salinity and water stress on growth

and macronutrients concentration of pomegranate (Punica granatum L).

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 37 (12) (in press).

Kashyap, P., Pramanick, K. K., Meena, K. K. and Meena, V., 2012, Effect of N and K

application on yield and quality of pomegranate cv. Ganesh under rainfed

conditions. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 69 (3) : 322-327.

Khayyat, M., Tehranifar, A., Zaree, M., Karimian, Z., Aminifard, M. H.,

Vazifeshenas, M. R., Amini, S., Noori, Y. and Shakeri, M., 2012, Effects of

potassium Nitrate spraying on fruit characteristics of malasyazdi

pomegranate. Journal of plant nutrition, 35: 1387-1393.

Khalil, H. A. and Aly, H. S. H., 2013, Cracking and fruit quality of pomegranate

(Punica granatum L.) as affected by pre-harvest sprays of some growth

regulators and mineral nutrients. Journal of Horticultural Science and

Ornamental Plants, 5 (2) : 71-76.

Khorsandi, F., Yazdi, F. A. and Vazifehenas, M. R., 2009, Foliar zinc fertilization

improves marketable fruit yield and quality attributes of pomegranate.

International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11: 766-770.

Kirkby, E. A. and Mengel, 1967, Ionic balance in different tissues of the tomato plant

in relation to Nitrate, Urea or Ammonium nutrition. Plant Physiology, 42 (1)

: 6-14.

Kumar, R., Singh, J. and Verma, I. M., 2009, Influence of soil nutrient on yield and

qualitative attributes of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv Ganesh.

Progressive Horticulture, 41 (1) : 36-39

Lindsay, W. L. and Norvell, W. A., 1978, Development of a DTPA soil test for Zn,

Fe, Mn and Cu. Jornal of American Soil Science Society, 42: 421-428.

90

Lester, G. E., Jifon, J. L. and Rogers, G., 2005, Supplemental foliar potassium

application during muskmelon fruit development can improve fruit quality,

ascorbic acid and beta-carotene contents. Journal of American Society of

Horticulture Science, 130: 649-653.

Maity P. K., Das B. C. and Kundu S., 2006, effect of different sources of nutrients on

yield and quality of guava cv. L-49. Journal of crop and weed, 2 (2) : 17-19.

Malvi, R. U., 2011, Interaction of micronutrients with special reference to potassium.

Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 24 (1) : 106-109.

Manugistics, M. 1998, Statgraphics Plus for Windows. Reference manual.

Manugistics, Rock ville, MD..

Mengel, K. E., Kirkby, A., Koesgarten, H. and Appel. T., 2001, Principles of plant

nutrition. 5th El- Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht pp.1- 311.

Mir, M., Sharma, S. D. and Kumar, P., 2015, Nutrient Dynamics: Effect on cropping

behavior, nutrient profile and quality attributes of pomegranate (Punica

granatum L.) under rainfed agroclimatic Conditions. Journal of Plant

Nutrition. 38: 83-95.

Mir, M., Hassan G I., Mir A., Hassan A. and Sulaimani, M., 2013, effects of bio-

organics and chemical fertilizers on nutrient availability and biological

properties of pomegranate orchard soil. African Journal of Agricultural

Research, 8 (37) : 4623-4627.

Mohamed, M. A., Ibrahiem, H. I. M. and Omar, M. O. A., 2014, Selecting The Best

N, P and K Levels For The Newly Introduced Wounderful Pomegranate

Trees Grown Under Minia Region World Rural Observations 6 (4) : 23-29.

Nayak, K., Sharma, D. K., Singh, C.S., Mishra, V. K., Singh,G. and

Swarup,A.,2011,Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System

Approach for Nitrogen, Phosphours, Potassium and Zinc foliar diagnostic

norms for Aonla in central Indo-gangentic plains. Journal of Plant Nutrition,

34: 547–556.

91

Panigrahi, P. and Srivastava, A. K., 2011, Integrated use of water and nutrients

through drip irrigation in Nagpur mandarin. Journal of Agricultural

Engineering, 48 (3) : 47-50.Patil, P. K. and V. K. Patil, 1982, Effect of soil

ESP on the growth and chemical composition of pomegranate (Punica

granatum L.) Prog. Hort., 14: 1–5.

Piper, C. S., 1966, Soil and Plant Analysis. Han’s Publication, Bombay.

Poovaiah, B. W., 1986, Role of calcium in prolonging storage life of fruits and

vegetables Food Technology, 40: 86-89.

Post, J. E., 1999, Manganese oxide minerals: Crystal structures and economic and

environmental significance, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 96: 3447-3454

Prakash, K. and Balakrishna, S., 2014, Effect of foliar application of some chemical

substances on fruit characters of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv.

Bhagva. Trends in Biosciences, 7 (21) : 3500-3501.

Pujar, A. S., Yadawe, M. S., Pujeri, U. S., Pujari, K. G. and Hiremath, S. C., 2010,

Assessment of soil fertility of grape field at Bijapur district, Karnataka.

European Journal of Chemistry, 7 (4) : 1304-1307.

Raghupathia, H. B. and Bhargava, B. S., 1998a, Leaf and soil nutrient diagnostic

norms for pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Communication in Soil

Science and Plant Analysis, 29: 19-20.

Raghupathia, H. B. and Bhargavaa, B. S., 1998b, Leaf and soil nutrient diagnostic

norms for pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Journal of Indian Society of

Soil Science, 46: 412-416.

Rao, K. D. and Subramanyam. K., 2009, Effect of nitrogen fertigation on growth and

yield of pomegranate var. mridula under low rainfall. Agricultural Science

Digest, 29 (2) : 54-56.

Ray, S. K., Takawale, P. V., Chatterjee, R. and Hnamte, V., 2014, Yield and quality

of pomegranate as influenced by organic and inorganic nutrients.

The Bioscan, 9 (2) : 617-620.

92

Rizea, N. and Florea, N, 2007, High exchangable sodium saturation of soil does not

induce high alkaline condition. Romanian Agricultural Research, 24: 55-60.

Saraf, R. K., Samaiya, R. K. and Shukhla, K. C., 2001, Effect of different sources of

nutrients on growth of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Proceedings of

National Conference on “Biodiversity and sustainable utilization of

biological resources”, pp. 203–208.

Sarafi, E., Chatzissavvidis, C., Therios, L., 2014, Effect of Calcium and Boron on the

ion status, Carbohydrate and proline content, Gas Exchange parameters and

growth performance of pomegranate cv. Wonderful plants grown under

NaCl stress. Turkish. Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 2:

1606-1615.

Savita, B., Raghupathi, H. B., Verma, S. and Anjaneyulu, K., 2013, Nutritional status

of sapota (Manikara achras M.) gardens and optimum ranges of nutrients

for higher production. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science, 61 (2) :

112-116.

Serrao, M. G., Fernandes, M. L., Fernandes, M., Castelo, B. M. and Vieira, E. S. J.,

1998, Transformations of phosphorus in calcareous soils as affected by

phosphorus and pyrite additions. 16th World Science Congress, 20th - 26th

August, Montepellier, France.

Sharma., Kumar, V., Tiwari, R. and Chouhan, P., 2014, Effect of N, P and their

interaction on physico- chemical parameters of guava (Psidium guajava) cv.

L-49 under Malwa Plateau Conditions. International Journal of Scientific

and Research Publications, 4 (11) : 1-4.

Sheikh, M. K., 2006, The pomegranate (Ist Edn). International Book Distributing

Company, Charbagh, Lucknow. pp. 1-91.

Sheikh, M. K. and Manjula, N., 2012, Effect of chemicals on control of fruit cracking

in pomegranate (Punica granatum) var. Ganesh. II. International symposium

on the pomegranate held at Zaragoza-Spain, pp.337.

93

Sheikh, M. K. and Rao, M. M., 2005, Effect of split application of N and K on growth

and yield of pomegranate. Karnataka Journal Agricultural Sciences, 18 (3) :

854-856.

Singh, J. and Kumar, R., 2012, Influence of soil nutrient status on yield and

qualitative attributes of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) and ber

(Zizyphus mauritiana LAMK.) Horticultural Flora Research Spectrum, 1 (1)

: 5-12.

Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., 1981, Statistical methods, seventh ed. Iowa State

UniversityPress, Iowa, USA.

Subbiah, B. V. and Asija, G. L., 1956, A rapid procedure for the estimation of

available nitrogen in soil. Current Sciences. 25: 259-260.

Skwierawska, M., Zawartka, L. and Zawadzki, B., 2008, The effect of different rates

and forms of sulphur applied on changes of soil agrochemical properties.

Plant and Soil Environment, 54 (4) : 171-177.

Talibudeen, O., 1981, The chemistry of soil processes. In D. J. Greenland and M. H.

B. Hayes (eds.) John Wiley and sons, New York, pp. 81-114.

Tandon, H. L. S., 1992, Fertlizer development and consultation organization, 204-204

A Bhanot Corner, 1-2 Pampers Enclave, New Delhi.

Tarai, R. K. and Ghosh, S.N., 2005, Effect of nitrogen levels on yield, fruit quality

and foliar NPK status of aonla grown on laterite soil, Indian Journal of

Horticulture, 62 (4) : 394-395.

Tehranifar, A. and Taber, S. M., 2009, Foliar application of potassium and boron

during pomegranate (Punica granatum) fruit development can improve fruit

quality. Horticultural Environment and Biotechnology, 50 (3) : 1-6.

Tony, W. and John, C., 1994, All about cherry cracking. Tree fruit leader, 3 (2).

Walkley, A. J. and Black, C. A., 1934, An examination of the method for determining

soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration

method. Soil Science, 37: 29-38.

94

Westermann, D. T. and Leytem, A. B., 2003, Soil factors affecting P availabilities in

western soils. USDA-ARS. WNM Salt Lake.

Wiedenhoeft, A. C., 2006, Micrunutrients. In: W.G. Hapkins (ed), Plant Nutrition.

Chelsea House Publications, pp: 14-36.

William M. 2007. Open Stat For Windows, version 1.9, Tutorial Manual. I. S. U.,

USA.

Yagoden, B. A. (1990), Agriculture chemistry Mir Publishers Moscow pp. 278-281.

Yao, L., Li, G., Yang, B. and Shihua., 2009, Optimal fertilization of Banana for high

yield, quality and nutrient use efficiency. Better Crops, 93 (1) : 10-11.

Yenjeerappa. S. T., 2009, Management of bacterial blight of pomegranate caused by

xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae. Ph.D Thesis, University of

Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Zatloukalova, T. L., Hlusek, P. P., Sedlacek, M., Filipcik, R., 2011, The effect of soil

and foliar applications of magnesium fertilizers on yields and quality of vine

(Vitis Vinifera L.) Grapes. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae

Mendelianae Brunensis. 49 (3) : 221-226.

95

Appendix I: Details of the contact farmers selected for the study

Sl. No.

Name of the farmer Village name Age of orchards

Area (Acre)

Survey no. Bahar treatment time Harvest time

1 Maruthi Tottad Govinakoppa 3.5 2.5 82/A 1st week of August 2-4 week of march

2 Ningappa Havalappa Tottad Govinakoppa 6 2 76/3 1st week of August 1-3 week of march

3 Birappa Basappa Tottad Govinakoppa 5 2 76/6 1st week of August 2-4 week of march

4 Yankappa Holeppa Tottad Govinakoppa 4 2.5 76/1 1st week of August 2-4 week of march

5 Siddappa Hanumappa Sivaniche Govinakoppa 3 3 2 1st week of August 1-3 week of march

6 Mallappa Basappa Tottad Govinakoppa 3 5 69/1 1st week of August 2-4 week of march

7 Nagappa Baramappa Shivanivche Govinakoppa 6 2 77 1st week of August 1-3 week of march

8 Ishwarpanishetti Kaladagi 3.5 2.5 371/3 1st week of August 1-4 week of march

9 Shivappa Bashetti Panishetti Kaladagi 3.5 7 366/1 2nd week of August 2 week of march to 1 week of April

10 Allabhash Bilagi Kaladagi 3 7 345/1 2nd week of August 2 week of march to 1 week of April

11 Hanumath Rao Limaraj chawan Kaladagi 3.5 3 116/2 1st week of August 2 week of march to 1

week of April

12 Limraj chawan Kaladagi 3.5 4 30/6 1st week of August 3 week of march to 2 week of April

13 Lakshman gangappa Bilikere Kaladagi 3.5 2 289/3 2nd week of August 3 week of march to 2 week of April

14 Bhemappa gangappa Bilikere Kaladagi 3.5 2 289/2 1st week of August 3 week of march to 2 week of april

15 Makdhumsab Badesab Hoskoti Kaladagi 3.5 5 54 1st week of August 2 -5 week of march Contd......

96

Sl. No. Name of the farmer Village name Age of

orchards Area Survey no Date of bahar treatment Harvest time

16 Tajuddin Kaladagi 5 2.5 167/4 1st week of August 2 -5th week of march

17 Lakshman thimmappa talvar Sokanadagi 3 3 100 2nd week of August 2- 4th week of march

18 Ramappa Nagappa samshi Sokanadagi 3.5 1 105 1st week of August 1-3 rd week of march

19 Thippavva yamanappa chabbi Sokanadagi 3 1.5 67 1st week of August 1-3 rd week of march

20 Lakshmappa lakshmappa kolur Sokanadagi 3.5 3 45/1 1st week of August 2-4th week of march

21 Hanumappa ramappa madar Sokanadagi 7 1 451/A 1st week of August 2-4th week of march

22 Govindappa lakshmappa kolur Sokanadagi 3 1 45/1 1st week of August 2-5th week of march

23 Lakkappa bherappa rayappanavar Sokanadagi 5 8 - 2nd week of August 3rd week of march to 2nd week of April

24 Vittal rayappanavar Sokanadagi 5 1.5 105 2nd week of August 3rd week of march to 2nd week of April

25 Shubhash ningappa rayappanavar Sokanadagi 5 2 106 3rd week of August 3rd week of march to 2nd week of April

26 Lakkappa Hanumappa chorgasti Sokanadagi 3 1 69 2nd week of August 4th week of march to 3 rd week of April

27 Govindappa hanumappa jalappanavar Chikkasamshi 3.5 5 - 2nd week of August 3 rd week of march to 2nd

week of April

28 Ramanagouda Thimmanagouda patil Chikkasamshi 3 2 48 3rd week of August 3 rd week of march to 2nd week of April

29 Lokanagouda Ramanagouda patil Chikkasamshi 3.5 2 43/3 2nd week of August 2nd week of march to 1th week of April

30 Rudrappa mudukkannavar Hiresamshi 3.5 2 - 3rd week of August 2nd week of march to 1th week of April

96

97

EVALUATION OF SOIL AND PLANT NUTRIENT STATUS IN RELATION TO POMEGRANATE PRODUCTIVITY

ARCHANA M. 2015 Dr. SUMA R.

Major Advisor ABSTRACT

“Evaluation of soil and plant nutrient status in relation to pomegranate

productivity”, the study was conducted in thirty pomegranate orchards, located in

five villages viz., Govinakoppa, Kaladagi, Sokanadagi, Chikkasamshi and

Hiresamshi of Bagalkot taluka, Karnataka considering three major crieteria viz.,

Bhagwa variety, crop age (3-7 years) and hasta bahar season.

The pomegranate orchards were categorized into low (<11.1 t ha-1), medium

(11.10 to 15.50 t ha-1) and high yielding (>15.5 t ha-1) depending on their yield levels.

Thirteen orchards were grouped under low category with mean yield of 9.42 t ha-1

(8.3-10.1 t ha-1) and nine orchards under medium (11.5 -14.5 t ha-1) and eight

orchards in high yielding (15.5- 22.0 t ha-1) category. The high yielding orchards

recorded significantly higher number of fruits (43-51) and fruit weight (312.80-

364.20g plant-1) as compared to other categories.

In general, the pomegranate farmers were applying low rates of N (107-287 g

plant-1), high rates of P2O5 (187.7-536 g plant-1) and on par rates of K2O (115-300 g

plant-1) as compared to recommended levels (400-625:200:200 N: P2O5: K2O g plant-

1) by various farm institutes.

The soil nutrient status indicated high amounts of organic carbon, available N,

K, S, Mn and B in high yielding orchards while, available Ca, Mg, Cu and Fe were

relatively higher in low yielding orchards. The regression analysis indicated OC, N

and K as critical soil variables explaining most variations in pomegranate yield

followed by B and S.

Similarly, N, B and S were the critical plant nutrient variables explaining most

of the variations in pomegranate yield, followed by K and Ca. Copper was the single

nutrient factor which was negatively correlated to yield at all crop growth stage,

however was insignificant. High yielding orchards recorded significantly higher

concentrations of N (1.74%), K (1.74%), Ca (1.91%), Mg (0.47%), S (0.29%), Mn

(71.56 mg kg-1) and B (14.24 mg kg-1) as compared to low yielding orchards and their

concentration in pomegranate leaves decreased with the advancement of crop growth.

98

zÁ½A¨É GvÁàzÀPÀvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄtÄÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¸Àå ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¹ÜwAiÀÄ ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À

CZÀð£Á JªÀiï. 2015 qÁ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁ Dgï. ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÀÄ

¸ÁgÁA±À “zÁ½A¨É GvÁàzÀPÀvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄtÄÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¸Àå ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¹ÜwAiÀÄ

ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À’ F CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl vÁ®ÆèQ£À LzÀÄ ºÀ½îUÀ¼ÁzÀ UÉÆë£ÀPÉÆ¥Àà, PÀ¯ÁzÀV, ¸ÉÆPÀ£ÁzÀV, aPÀ̸ÀA² ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »ÃgɸÀA²AiÀÄ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ zÁ½A¨É vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À°è £ÀqɸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. F vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¨ÁUÀé (PÉøÀgï) vÀ½, 3-7 ªÀµÀðzÀ ¨É¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ‘ºÀ¸ÀÛ §ºÁgï’ IÄvÀÄ, F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

zÁ½A¨É vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀÅUÀ¼À E¼ÀĪÀj ªÀÄlÖzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀrªÉÄ (< 11.1 l£ï/ ºÉ), ªÀÄzsÀåªÀÄ (11.1-15.5 l£ï/ºÉ) ºÁUÀÆ C¢üPÀ (> 15.5 l£ï/ºÉ) E¼ÀĪÀjAiÀÄļÀî vÉÆÃlUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÀVÃðPÀj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj 9.42 l£ï/ºÉ E¼ÀĪÀj ºÉÆA¢zÀ ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (8.3-10.13 l£ï/ºÉ) PÀrªÉÄ E¼ÀĪÀjAiÀÄ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ, MA¨sÀvÀÄÛ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzsÀåªÀÄ (11.5-14.50 l£ï/ºÉ) ºÁUÀÆ JAlÄ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¢üPÀ E¼ÀĪÀj (15.5-22.0 l£ï/ºÉ) ¤ÃqÀĪÀ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÀVÃðPÀj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. C¢üPÀ E¼ÀĪÀj ªÀUÀðzÀ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À°è ºÀtÄÚUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå (43-51) ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtÂÚ£À vÀÆPÀ (312.8- 364.2 UÁæA/ ¸À¸Àå) ºÉaÑ£À ªÀÄlÖzÀ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢vÀÄ.

¥Àæ̧ ÀÄvÀÛ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀzÀ°è, §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ gÀåvÀgÀÄ zÁ½A¨É ¨É¼ÉUÉ, ««zsÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À

¥ÀæªÀiÁtQÌAvÀ (400-625:200:200¸ ¸Á:gÀA:¥ÉÆ UÁæA/¸À¸Àå) PÀrªÉÄ ¸ÁgÀd£ÀPÀ (107-287

UÁæA/¸À¸Àå), ºÉaÑ£À gÀAdPÀ (187.7-536 UÁæA/¸À¸Àå) ºÁUÀÆ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀÄlÖzÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÁåµï

¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß (115-300 UÁæA/¸À¸Àå) ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÉ. ªÀÄtÂÚ£À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÁªÀAiÀĪÀ EAUÁ®, ¸ÁgÀd£ÀPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÉÆÃmÁåµï CA±ÀªÀÅ zÁ½A¨É GvÁàzÀPÀvÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É Cwà ºÉaÑ£À zsÀ£ÁvÀäPÀ ¥Àæ̈ sÁªÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. EªÀÅUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ¨ÉÆÃgÁ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAzsÀPÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ½zÀÄÝ, F J®è ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄlÖªÀÅ C¢üPÀ E¼ÀĪÀj ¤ÃqÀĪÀ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À°è ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°èzÉ. DzÀgÉ, ¸ÀÄtÚ, ªÉÄVßöAiÀÄA, vÁªÀÄæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ©âtzÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄlÖªÀÅ PÀrªÉÄ E¼ÀĪÀj ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ vÉÆÃlUÀ¼À ªÀÄtÂÚ£À°è C¢üPÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÉ.

zÁ½A¨É J¯ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÁgÀd£ÀPÀ, ¨ÉÆÃgÁ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAzsÀPÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ zÁ½A¨É E¼ÀĪÀjAiÀÄ ªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß «ªÀj¸ÀĪÀ ¤uÁðAiÀÄPÀ ¸À¸Àå ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÁVªÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¥ÉÆÃmÁåµï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄtÚzÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ zsÀ£ÁvÀäPÀ ¥Àæ̈ sÁªÀ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, vÁªÀÄæ ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±À ªÀiÁvÀæ E¼ÀĪÀjAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É IÄuÁvÀäPÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ©ÃgÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÉ. C¢üPÀ E¼ÀĪÀj ºÉÆA¢zÀ zÁ½A¨É ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼À°è ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ ¸ÁgÀd£ÀPÀ (1.74%), ¥ÉÆmÁåµï (1.74%), ¸ÀÄtÚ (1.91%), ªÉÄVßöAiÀÄA (0.74%), UÀAzsÀPÀ (0.29%) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁåAUÀ¤Ã¸ï (71.56 «Ä.UÁæA/100UÁæA) ¥ÉÆõÀPÁA±ÀUÀ½zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¨É¼ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀAvÉ PÀrªÉÄAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢zÉ.