الفهرس 
Effects of organic and bio-fertilizers on growth attributesOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 137 |  |  |
| | | from | 137 | | |
Abstract
The present investigation was carried out during the successive seasons of 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 at Elshrouk private orchard which is located at 74 Km Cairo-Alexandria desert road on Valencia orange trees at 7 year-old and budded on volkamer lemon planted at 6 meters between rows and 4 meters between trees and grown in sandy soil under drip irrigation system to study the effect of application numbers (twice or treble) of three different of organic fertilizers which cattle manure CM, market residue compost MRC and town refuse compost TRC with addition two bio-fertilizers (EM1 and yeast) compared with mineral fertilizers system. The amount of organic fertilizers per tree was calculated as nitrogen units contained for each of them compared with farm application mineral fertilization. As for EM1 treatment was applied with 1/2 liter per feddan and Yeasts treatment was applied with 1/2 kg per feddan as soil application at the same time with organic fertilizers.
The experimental design was split- split plot arrangements of randomized complete block design with four replicates. Each consisted of one Valencia orange tree.
This investigation aimed to study the effect of these treatments on some vegetative growth such as average leaves number per shoot, shoot length and leaf area. Also, flowering and setting such as flowers number per meter, fruit set %, fruit set % after June DROP, Yield, some physical fruit quality, total chlorophyll and mineral contents in the leaves and soil physical and chemical characters.
The obtained results could be summarized as follows:
5.1- Effect on Growth attributes:
1. Treble applications of organic and bio fertilizers treatments increased average leaves number per shoot at both study seasons, shoot length and leaf area in the first season only as compared with twice applications.
2. Bio fertilizers treatments increased average leaves number per shoot, shoot length and leaf area as compared with twice applications at both study seasons.
3. No significant different between EM1 and Yeast treatments on average leaves number per shoot, shoot length and leaf area at both study seasons.
4. Mineral fertilization treatment increased average leaves number per shoot as compared with organic fertilization treatments in the first season, no significant different among mineral fertilization and MRC and TRC treatments in the second season.
5. Mineral fertilization treatment increased shoot length as compared with organic fertilization treatment, also, MRC and TRC treatments increased shoot length as compared with cattle manure treatment and no significant different between MRC and TRC treatments at both study seasons.
6. Mineral fertilization, MRC and TRC treatments increased leaf area compared with cattle manure treatment, no significant different among mineral fertilization, MRC and TRC treatments in both study seasons.
7. No significant different among three tested factors interaction treatments on average leaves number per shoot, shoot length and leaf area.
5.2- Effect on flowering and setting:
1. No significant effect on flowers number per meter, fruit set % and fruit set % after June DROP by applications number treatments in the first season, however, treble applications treatment increased flowers number per meter, fruit set % and fruit set % after June DROP compared with twice applications treatment in the second season.
2. EM1 and Yeast treatments increased flowers number per meter in the second season compared with untreated trees and no significant different were showed in the first season.
3. EM1 and Yeast treatments increased fruit set % and fruit set % after June DROP compared with untreated trees and no significant different between EM1 and Yeast treatments in both study seasons.
4. Organic fertilizers treatments decreased flowers number per meter compared with mineral fertilizers treatment, at the same time cattle manure treatment decreased flowers number per meter compared with MRC and TRC treatment and no significant different between MRC and TRC treatments.
5. Mineral fertilization, MRC and TRC treatments increased fruit set % compared with cattle manure treatment and no significant different among mineral fertilization, MRC and TRC treatments in the first season.
6. Mineral fertilization treatment increased fruit set % compared with MRC and cattle manure treatments and no significant different between mineral fertilization and TRC treatments.
7. Mineral fertilization, MRC and TRC treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with cattle manure treatment.
8. Mineral fertilization treatment increased fruit set % and fruit set % after June DROP compared MRC and TRC treatments.
9. No significant different between MRC and TRC treatments on fruit set % after June DROP.
10. No significant different among applications number and bio fertilization interaction treatments on flowers number per meter and fruit set % in both study seasons.
11. Applications number and bio fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with untreated trees in both study seasons.
12. Applications number and organic fertilization interaction treatments did not effect on fruit set % at both study seasons.
13. Applications number and mineral fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with applications number and organic fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
14. No significant different among applications number and MRC or TRC fertilization interaction treatments on fruit set % after June DROP in both study seasons.
15. Mineral or organic fertilization and bio fertilization interaction treatments did not effect on flowers number per meter and fruit set % at both study seasons.
16. Mineral and bio fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with organic and bio fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
17. No significant different among three tested factors interaction treatments on flowers number per meter and fruit set % at both study seasons.
18. Treble application, bio fertilizers and mineral fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with application numbers, organic and bio fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
19. Treble application, bio fertilizers and MRC or TRC interaction treatments increased fruit set % after June DROP compared with application numbers, cattle manure and bio fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
5.3- Effect on yield:
1. Treble applications of organic and bio fertilizers treatments increased fruit number as compared with twice applications treatment at both study seasons.
1. EM1 and Yeast treatments increased fruit number per tree compared with untreated trees at both study seasons.
2. Mineral fertilization treatment increased yield compared with organic fertilization treatments at both study seasons.
3. Yield significantly increased by MRC treatment compared with TRC treatment in the second season.
4. Applications number and bio fertilization interaction treatments increased yield compared with untreated trees in both study seasons.
5. Applications number and mineral fertilization interaction treatments increased yield compared with applications number and organic fertilization interaction treatments.
6. Treble application and MRC or TRC interaction treatments increased yield compared with application numbers and cattle manure interaction treatments at both study seasons.
7. Mineral and bio fertilization interaction treatments increased yield compared with organic and bio fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
8. Treble application, bio fertilizers and MRC or TRC interaction treatments increased yield compared with application numbers, cattle manure and bio fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
5.4- Effect on physical fruit quality:
1. Treble applications of organic and bio fertilizers treatments increased fruit weight and peel weight % at both study seasons. However, it increased fruit juice % in second season and no significant effect on rag weight % as compared with twice applications treatment.
2. EM1 and Yeast treatments increased fruit weight compared with untreated trees at both study seasons. At the same time, EM1 treatment increased fruit weight compared with Yeast treatment in the first season.
3. Mineral fertilization treatment increased fruit weight compared with organic fertilization treatments at both study seasons.
4. Cattle manure treatment increased fruit weight compared with MRC and TRC treatments at both study seasons.
5. TRC treatment increased fruit weight compared with MRC treatment in the first season only.
6. Applications number and bio fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit weight compared with untreated trees in the first season.
7. No significant different of peel weight % and rag weight % by applications number and bio fertilization interaction treatments in both study seasons.
8. Applications number and Yeast interaction treatments increased juice weight % compared with applications number and mineral fertilization interaction.
9. Applications number and mineral fertilization interaction treatments increased fruit weight compared with applications number and organic fertilization interaction treatments at both study seasons.
10. Applications number and cattle manure interaction treatments increased fruit weight compared with applications number and MRC or TRC fertilization interaction in both study seasons.
11. Treble application and TRC interaction treatment increased fruit weight compared with twice application and TRC or MRC interaction treatments at both study seasons.