AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE

www.arccjournals.comIndian J. Agric. Res.., 48 (3) 211-216, 2014

doi:10.5958/j.0976-058X.48.3.035

NUTRIENT INDEXING OF GUAVA ORCHARDS INHISAR DISTRICT OF HARYANA, INDIA

Satpal Baloda* , Vinod Phogat, S.K. Bhatia, J.R. Sharma and Shweta

Department of Horticulture,CCS Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar-125 001.India

Received: 16-08-2013 Accepted: 12-04-2014

ABSTRACTSoil and leaf samples were collected from 12 Guava orchards of 3-35 years of age with average

growth and productivity in the month of August 2008. The gross return varied from Rs 3000-60,000as per acre as the statement of growers. The E.C, p.H and O.C of surface soil samples (0-30 cm) werefound almost similar with non orchard soils. The available N, P and K contents of surface soil washigher than the available N, P and K contents of non orchard soil. The nitrogen of the surface soilhad low index values where as phosphorus and potassium had high index value. Micronutrients(Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe) of surface soil samples had high index values. Guava plants had sufficientamount of Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn. In case of nitrogen, 83% orchards were found to be deficient.Deficiencies of orchards were higher in case of P and K. The present study clearly indicates that thesoil conditions exert considerable influence on nutrient status of the fruit trees.

Key words: Macronutrients, Micronutrients, Nutrient indexing, Psidium guajava.

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: s_baloda@rediffmail.com.

INTRODUCTIONGuava is one of the most familiar fruit

crops of North India because of i ts highadaptability to wide range of climate and soilcondition. It is gaining popularity among fruitgrowers of Haryana. Farmers, sometimes applyeither more or less fertilizers than the requirementof the plants, which affect growth adversely. Thus,analysis of leaves for elemental composition is abetter tool to assess the fertilizer requirements asreported by Bould et al (1964). Soil and leafnutrient concentrations standards have beendeveloped by numerous researchers to evaluatethe nutrient status of fruit plants as reported byChavan and Patil (1980). However, informationis scanty on nutrient indexing of the fruit trees. Ingeneral, the bearing capacity of guava treesdeclines after 8-15 years depending on themaintenance of orchards and application ofmanure and fertilizers. Most of the guava growersin Haryana don’t apply required quantities offertilizers as per recommendations. The nutrients,if not applied in required quantity and proportion,may lead to their deficiency in plants. Therefore,

the present investigation was undertaken toevaluate the macro and micro nutrient status ofboth soil and leaves of guava plants from theorchards of Hisar district in order to correct theirdeficiencies in standing crops.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThe soil samples, from 12 guava orchards

representing entire guava belt of Hisar district, werecollected and analyzed for their nutrient contents.Surface (O-30cm) and sub surface (30·-90 cm) soilsamples were taken from each guava orchard andnearby non orchard soil separately. Soil samples wereanalyzed for pH, E.C. (1:2 soil water suspensions)as described by Jackson (1967), organic carbon,available N, P, K. Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe. Leaf sampleswere collected from trees of above orchards in themonth of August 2008. The orchards were 3 to 35years of age. Recently matured leaves were collectedand analysed for N, P, K, Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu contentsas described by Chapman and Pratt (1961). A socioeconomic survey of the orchard growers was alsoanalyzed.

212 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

TAB

LE 1

: So

cio-

econ

omic

al s

urve

y of

the

sel

ecte

d gu

ava

orch

ards

of

the

His

ar d

istri

ct.

e

d

213Vol. 48, No. 3 , 2014

Name of Block

Name of village

0-30 cm 30-90 cm

pH EC O.C. pH EC O.C. O NO O NO O NO O NO O NO O NO

Hansi Hansi 7.52 7.57 0.44 0.43 0.48 0.46 7.48 7.54 0.43 0.40 0.47 0.44 Sisai 7.92 8.12 0.19 0.21 0.59 0.58 7.90 8.05 0.18 0.20 0.57 0.57

Narnaund Khandakheri 7.37 7.46 0.25 0.19 0.47 0.44 7.31 7.31 0.24 0.14 0.45 0.41 Majra 7.65 7.65 0.11 0.14 0.61 0.60 7.63 7.60 0.10 0.13 0.58 0.57

Uklana Uklana 8.53 8.60 0.41 0.31 0.39 0.37 8.51 8.56 0.40 0.28 0.48 0.46 Mugalpura 8.46 8.55 0.25 0.23 0.47 0.43 8.45 8.50 0.25 0.16 0.45 0.42

Adampur Kaliraman 8.24 8.40 0.33 0.32 0.49 0.50 8.22 8.39 0.32 0.31 0.47 0.48 Siswal 7.91 7.92 0.21 0.21 0.43 0.41 7.90 7.90 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.41

Hisar II Kaimeri 7.59 7.75 0.28 0.23 0.30 0.32 7.57 7.68 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.30 Mangali 7.93 8.13 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.19 7.90 8.10 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.16 Hisar I Aryanagar 8.12 8.14 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.17 8.08 8.12 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 Hisar 7.95 8.02 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.30 7.92 8.00 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.27 Hisar District

Mean - - 0.27 0.23 0.40 0.39 - - 0.24 0.21 0.39 0.38 Range 7.37-

8.53 7.46-8.60

0.11-0.44

0.14-0.43

0.19-0.61

0.17-0.60

7.31-8.51

7.31-8.56

0.10-0.43 0.13-0.40

0.17-0.57

0.15-0.57

O = Orchard Soil No = Non orchard soil

TABLE 2A: Physico-chemical properties of the soils of guava orchards of Hisar

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe data in Table 1 reveal that the age of the

orchards varies in between 3 to 35 years. Thegrowers, generally applied 10 kg FYM per plant inaddition to other fertilizers available with them. Theyield varies from 5 to 300 q/ acre. The gross returnper acre also varies from Rs. 3000››60000 per acreas per statements of the growers.

Soil analysis: The data presented in Table 2A revealthat the pH of surface soil samples (0-30 cm) variesfrom 7.37 to 8.53 which is considered as satisfactoryfor orchards as reported by Boseet. al.,(2002) EC varies from 0.11 to 0.44 dSm-1

and organic carbon from 0.19 to 0.61%. In case ofnearby non orchard soils, the pH of the surface soil(0-30 cm) varies from 7.46 to 8.60, E.C. 0.14 to0.43 dSm-1 and organic carbon 0.17-0.60%.However in case of subsurface soil samples (30-90cm) pH, EC and organic carbon were low in bothorchard and non orchard soil as compared to thesurface soil samples (0-30cm).The data in Table 2Breveal that available N, P, K contents of surface soilsvaries from 135.2 to 166.4, 10.70 -40.05 kg/ ha and228.40-431.20 kg/ ha, respectively. In case of nonorchard surface soils, the available N varies from133.2-157.8, P 15.42-26.20 kg/ ha and K 229.0-432.60 kg/ ha, respectively. Similarly in case of subsurface soil samples (30-90cm) N, P and K contentswere low in both orchard and non orchard soils.The low level of organic carbon may be due to thereason that the growers generally apply small

quantities of Farm yard manure. The nitrogencontent of the soil samples were in low range. Thephosphorus content of the soil samples fluctuatedfrom medium to high range whereas potassiumcontent is in high range.

The data in Table 2C reveal that the zinccontent of surface soil (0-30 cm depth) of the orchardsoils under the experimental sites varied from 1.02to 3.50, copper from 0.36 to 2.28, Mn from 4.74 to16.94 and Fe from 4.24 to 19.95 mg/ l respectively.Similarly in case of sub surface soil (30-90 cm)depth, Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe varied from 0.90 to 3.40;0.20 to 2.90, 3.88 to 16.50, 4.12 to 19.67 ppmrespectively. In case of non orchard surface soils,the DTPA extractable Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe varied .92to 3.10; 0.40 to 2.80, 6.00 to 16.83, 5.10 to 20.49mg/ kg soil respectively. The results were similar withearlier as reported by Singh and Gupta (1997)

The data in Table 3 reveal that nitrogen ofthe surface soils have low index values whereas andphosphorus, potassium and micronutrients (Zn, Cu,Mn, Fe) contents have high index values. Similartrend was observed in sub surface soil samples.

No. of samples in low X 1 + No. of samples in medium X 2 + No. of samples in high X 3

IV = — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total number of samples

0.43

214 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

O

=

Orc

hard

Soi

l

N

o

= N

on o

rcha

rd s

oil

TAB

LE 2

B:

Ava

ilabl

e nu

trie

nt s

tatu

s of

the

soils

of

gu

ava

orch

ards

of

His

ar.

O

=

Orc

hard

Soi

lN

o

= N

on o

rcha

rd s

oil

TAB

LE 2

C: A

vaila

ble

mic

ronu

trie

nt s

tatu

s of

the

soi

ls o

f gu

ava

orch

ards

of

His

ar.

429.

75-

215Vol. 48, No. 3 , 2014

0-30 cm Low Medium High Index value Range

N 72 - - 1.00 L P - 42 30 2.42 H K - 6 66 2.92 H Zn - 18 54 2.75 H Cu - 6 66 2.92 H Mn - - 72 3.00 H Fe 5 36 21 1.94 H 30-90 cm

Low Medium High Index value Range N 72 - - 1.00 L P 5 56 11 2.08 M K - 6 66 2.92 H Zn - 16 56 2.78 H Cu 5 1 66 2.85 H Mn - - 72 3.00 H Fe 5 41 26 2.29 H

TABLE 3: Nutrient indexing of soil of guava orchards of Hisar.Leaf analysis : The data in Table 4 indicate thatthe nitrogen content of leaves ranged from 0.75-2.53per cent. The phosphorus content of leaves rangedfrom 0.11 to 0.28 per cent. The leaf potassiumcontent varied from 1.04- -1.68 per cent. Thesevalues are comparatively similar to those as reportedearlier by Chavan and Patil (1980) and Khandujaand Garg (1980). The Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn contentof leaves ranged from 8.70 to 23.4, 9.72to 18.8,319.2 to 778.5 and 31.2 to 72.6 mg/ kg, respectively.

The data in Table 5 reveal that the guavaplants have sufficient amount of Zn, Cu and Fecontents. However, in case of nitrogen, 83% orchardswere found to be deficient. Deficiency percentagesof orchards were high in case of phosphorus andpotassium. In case of potassium 91% deficiency was

observed. In phosphorus content 75% orchards weredeficient whereas in case of manganese 8% deficiencywas observed. This may be attributed to the fact that

the orchardists usually apply low doses of N, P & Kfertilizers. These results were similar with earlierfindings as observed by Dahiya et al (1987).

TABLE 5: Indexing of nutrients in guava fruit.

Nutrients Critical limit Sufficient Deficient Deficiencies %

N 2.50 20 100 83P 0.25 30 90 75K 1.82 10 110 91Zn 20 120 - -Cu 10 120 - -Fe 50 120 - -Mn 40 110 10 8

Name of farmer village N % P % K % Zn ppm Cu ppm Fe ppm Mn ppm

Hansi Hansi 2.12 0.22 1.10 12.15 13.85 395.2 52.2 Sisai 2.53 0.18 1.04 13.20 13.40 569.7 42.5 Narnaund Khandakheri 1.28 0.28 1.13 9.18 9.72 518.3 39.8 Majra 1.49 0.13 1.68 8.70 11.17 593.2 42.16 Uklana Uklana 1.89 0.14 1.27 12.7 18.8 672.6 72.6 Mugalpura 1.91 0.16 1.11 17.4 17.8 778.5 38.8 Adampur Kaliraman 1.35 0.23 1.19 16.6 16.4 739.6 71.3 Siswal 0.75 0.18 1.18 17.7 12.2 572 36.4 Hisar II Kaimeri 2.18 0.11 1.27 22.1 14.0 608.0 47.4

Mangali 1.78 0.16 1.60 15.2 14.0 676.7 60.8 Hisar I

Aryanagar 1.91 0.17 1.10 17.5 12.0 319.2 31.2 Hisar 1.76 0.19 1.06 23.4 13.8 540.5 41.9

Hisar District Mean 1.74 0.17 1.22 15.48 13.92 581.9 4.80 Range 0.75-2.53 0.11-0.28 1.04-1.68 8.70-23.4 9.72-18.8 319.2-778.5 31.2-72.6

TABLE 4: Nutrient status of guava leaves.

216 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

REFERENCESBose, T.K; Mitra, S.K and Sanyal, D.(2002). Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical book published by Naya Udyog, Calcutta.

pp 209-256.Bould, C, Prevol, P. and Magness, J.R.(1964). Plant analysis and fertilizer problems. Vol IV Pub. By American Society

for Horticultural Sci.Chapman, H.D and Pratt,P.F. (1961). Methods of Analysis for Soil, Plant and Water.California Div. Agric.Sci.USA.Chavan,S.D and Patil,V.K.(1980). Standardization of leaf sampling technique in Ber.cv. Banarasi.Indian J. Hort.

37 : 154-58Dahiya, S.S; Ahlawat, V.P; and Yamdagni, R.(1987). Nutritional status of guava orchards in Haryana. Intern. J.Trop.Agril.

5(1) : 55-61.Jackson, M.L (1967). Soil Chemical Analysis.Asia Publishing House, Bombay.Khanduja, S.D and Garg, V.K.(1980). Nutritional status of guava (Psidium guajava) trees in North India. J. Hort. Sci.

55: 433-435Singh, C.P and Gupta, S.P. (1997). Maintenance of guava orchards through Micro and Secondary nutrient managenment.

Haryana J. Hort.Sci.29 (1-2) : 32-34