Final SPH -JHS Coverpage 16-2 Jan 2021 single J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper Rose (Rosa spp.) is one of the most economically important ornamental crops in the world. Increasing demand for cut-flowers both in domestic and export markets encouraged many entrepreneurs to enter into the commercial cultivation of roses. Rose has been traditionally categorized as a salt-sensitive species with salt injury reported within a range of 0.5 to 3 dS m-1 electrical conductivity (EC) depending on species, cultural medium, leaching fraction, and environmental conditions (Urban, 2003). Bernstein et al. (1972) classified roses as having very poor tolerance to salinity with a 25-50% decrease in shoot growth at electrical conductivity values in the saturation extract (ECe) between 2 and 3 dS m-1, and experiencing lethal effects at ECe of 4 dS m -1. In green houses electrical conductivity levels will increase significantly as roses are irrigated with water soluble fertilizers. High content of salts affect the plants by reducing water availability to the plants and by specific ion toxicity of Na, Cl, B, etc. As the availability of good quality water has become scarce, farmers are using poor quality water with high salt content and ground water from deep layers of borewells which contain high amounts of bicarbonates for rose cultivation. The poor quality water affects the pH and EC of the growing medium which inturn affects the nutrient availability to the plants. High bicarbonate content in soil affects soil pH and affects availability of micronutrients especially iron. This bicarbonate induced iron deficiency or iron chlorosis results in poor flower yield and quality. The high bicarbonate (HCO3-) concentration and associated high pH of irrigation water is detrimental to plant growth, due to its adverse effects on availability and solubility of nutr ients (Ma r schner, 1995). By application of phosphoric and sulfuric acids through fertigation, many polyhouse units try to control the pH. This is a costly, cumbersome and unsafe practice. Sustainable rose production will have to incorporate INTRODUCTION Assessment of soil and water quality status of rose growing areas of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in India Varalakshmi L.R.*, Tejaswini P., Rajendiran S. and Upreti K.K. ICAR-India Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru - 560089, India *Corresponding author Email : varalakshmi.LR@icar.gov.in ABSTRACT Rose is a commercial flower crop widely grown across India. It is highly sensitive to salinity and alkalinity. In the process of identification of salt and alkalinity resistant rootstocks of rose cultivars, a survey was conducted in the rose growing areas of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Rajasthan. Total of 28 representative surface soil samples were collected from rose fields of these regions, processed and analyzed for the soil quality parameters. Similarly water samples (20 samples) from the bore wells of these fields were collected and analyzed. The results revealed that most of the soils of rose growing fields in UP were alkaline (pH >8.0) with normal salt content (electrical conductivity, EC < 0.5 dS m-1). Many of these soils also had higher bicarbonates (> 3 meq 100 g-1). In case of Rajasthan, few samples had higher pH, EC, chloride (>2 meq 100 g-1) and bicarbonate contents. Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) of UP and Rajasthan samples ranged from 5.21-20.7% and 2.94-24.9%, respectively. In case of water parameters in these areas, pH was slightly in alkaline range, EC of some of the samples were high (>1 dSm-1). Sodium content was slightly higher than other cations. Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) of water samples was also slightly higher than normal range (0-50%). Few samples had slightly higher chloride above the threshold limit. From the results, it is concluded that soil and water quality of the rose growing areas of UP and Rajasthan is marginal and proper management/reclamation measures need to be carried out for sustaining the production system. Keywords: Rajasthan, rose, Soil quality, Uttar Pradesh and water quality 281 Assessment of soil and water quality status of rose growing areas J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 economically feasible and environmentally sound solutions to problems associated with high levels of salts and HCO3- in irrigation water. One of the ways to manage this problem is to use resistant varieties or rootstocks. Though there are good number of studies on rootstocks for high pH in other countries, the work on this aspect in India is scanty. The area under salinity and alkalinity problems in Ra ja stha n is 1, 95, 571 ha a nd 1, 79, 371 ha , respectively. Similarly 21,989 ha of cultivated land is affected with salinity problems and 13,46,971 ha of land is affected with alkalinity problems in Uttar Pradesh (Mandal et al., 2011). Rose is being cultivated in 1342 ha- in Rajasthan (Shekhawat, 2012) and 612 ha- in Uttar Pradesh (Sachan et al., 2014). The present investigation was conducted to assess the soil and water quality sta tus of r ose gr owing a rea s of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh as a preliminary study for collection of rose germ-plasm for screening to tolerance of salinity and alkalinity problems of soil and water. MATERIALS AND METHODS Investigative surveys were conducted in Udaipur, Ha ldighati, Sir ohi, Pali a nd Jodhpur a r ea s of Rajasthan during October, 2017 and in Lucknow, Kannauj, Etah, and Aligarh areas of U.P. during January, 2018. Representative soil and water samples were collected from rose fields to assess quality status with respect to rose cultivation. About 28 surface soil samples and 20 water samples from these regions have been collected and analyzed for quality parameters. Soil samples were analyzed for pH using glass electrode and EC using conductivity meter in 1:2.5 soil: wa ter suspension (Richa r ds, 1954). T he exchangeable Na, K, Ca and Mg in the soils were analyzed using neutral normal ammonium acetate extr a ction method (Cha pma n 1965). Soluble bicarbonate and chloride content in the soil were analyzed by titration method (Richards, 1954). Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) of soil was calculated using the Equation 1 as given below (Richards, 1954). ESP(%) = Exchangeable {(Na)/(Ca + Mg + K + Na)} x 100 ……..Eq.(1) Similarly water samples have been analyzed for pH and EC using pH meter and conductivity meter (Richards, 1954). Na, K, Ca, Mg, HCO3 and Cl were analyzed following standard analytical procedures (Richards, 1954). Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of water samples had been calculated by adopting the following equation (Richards, 1954). SAR (me/L)1/2 = {(Na) / [(Ca + Mg)/2] 1/2 } ……..Eq.(2) Soluble sodium percentage was also calculated adopting equation 3(Richards, 1954). SSP (%) = {(Na +K) / (Ca + Mg + K + Na)} x 100 ……..Eq.(3) All the data were introduced to descriptive statistics for arithmetic mean and co-efficient of variation calculation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Soil quality parameters Soil r eaction in the study ar eas wa s found to slightly alkaline to highly alkaline range. The soil pH ranged from 7.83-9.34 in U.P with an average value of 8.55 (Table 1) and 7.18-8.42 in Rajasthan (average 7.91) (Table 2). The EC ranged from 0.12- 0.76 dS m-1 which was normal range in UP soils, whereas in Rajasthan soil it ranged from 0.14-4.59 dS m-1, mostly under normal range but few samples had higher EC particularly in Haldigati and Pali areas. The exchangeable cations Na, K, Ca and Mg in the U.P soils ranged from 174-730 mg kg-1, 48- 228 mg kg-1, 1109-2526 mg kg-1 and 369-548 mg kg-1, respectively. In Rajasthan, the corresponding values were 128-1575 mg kg-1, 65-367 mg kg- 1, 1 2 8 9 - 2 9 2 3 mg kg -1 a nd 2 8 9 - 5 0 8 mg kg -1 , respectively. The results showed some soil samples had higher exchangeable sodium. The same had been reflected in the ESP of the respective soils. Soils of U.P had 5.21-20.7% ESP (mean 8.65%) and soils of Rajasthan had 2.94-24.9% ESP (mean 9.52%). This showed that many soils had ESP above the limit of 6% ESP, that reflect prevalence of alka linity pr oblems in the study a r ea . T he exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) measures the proportion of cation exchange sites occupied by sodium. Soils are considered sodic when the ESP is greater than 6, and highly sodic when the ESP is greater than 15 (Tim et al., 2019). This showed that many rose growing farms are having sodicity problems in Uttar Pradesh and some in Rajastan. Further bicarbonate content of soils were also high 282 Varalakshmi et al in some soil samples (>2 meq 100 g-1) and it ranged from 0.3-3.9 meq 100 g-1 (mean 2.2 meq 100 g-1) in UP and 0.3-10.1 meq 100 g-1 (mean 2.83 meq 100 g- 1) in Rajasthan. The presence of higher sodium and bicarbonate in the soil could increase the soil alkalinity that is adverse to the plant growth. This is evident from the pH values of soil samples from the rose fields in both Rajastan and U.P. The chloride content of the soil varied from 0.4-4.0 meq 100 g-1 (mean 2.5 meq 100 g-1) in the UP region and 0.6-13.0 meq 100 g-1 (mean 3.23 meq 100 g-1) in Rajasthan samples. This indicated that chloride problem was more in Pali, Balarwa, and Haldigati regions of Rajasthan and in some pockets of Etah and Kannauj in UP. Soil alkalinity will result in poor soil structure and su r f a c e c r u st for ma t ion. High pH is u su a lly a s s oc ia t ed wit h high ex c ha ngea b le s odiu m percentage. On the other hand, soil salinity and chloride toxicity could also be a serious problem that affects the germination, root growth and water availability of the plant (Munn and Tester, 2008). E xc ess Na + ha d b een a s s umed t o b e la r gely responsible for reduction in crop growth and yield under salinity (Tsai et al., 2004; Hong et al., 2009). Though Cl- is an essential plant nutrient, it could be toxic to plants at high concentrations (Xu et al., 2000; White and Broadley, 2001). Table 1. Soil quality parameters of rose growing areas of Uttar Pradesh S.No. Location pH EC Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ HCO3 - Cl- ESP (dS (mg (mg (mg (mg (meq (meq (%) m-1) kg-1) kg-1) kg-1) kg-1) 100 g-1) 100 g-1) 1 Lucknow-1 8.44 0.21 179 147 1800 462 3.1 0.4 5.56 2 Lucknow-2 8.34 0.38 323 216 2526 539 2.5 1 7.36 3 Basheerpur-1 8.61 0.12 175 48 1344 450 2.3 0.6 6.70 4 Basheerpur-2 8.23 0.31 187 69.3 1109 369 3.2 1.2 8.46 5 Narora-1 9.34 0.23 363 103 2006 473 2.0 3.6 9.98 6 Narora-2 8.59 0.37 278 206 1694 436 0.3 4.0 8.73 7 Sarkari-1 8.22 0.39 212 228 1797 548 0.5 4.0 6.12 8 Sarkari-2 8.23 0.31 187 69.3 1109 369 0.3 2.4 8.46 9 Jagdevpura-1 8.91 0.38 463 127 1417 479 3.5 10 15.0 10 Jagdevpura-2 9.24 0.76 730 195 1577 452 3.9 2.4 20.7 11 Safedpura-1 8.56 0.23 174 199 1862 472 3.6 3.6 5.21 12 Sagedpura-2 8.40 0.25 215 110 1435 526 3.0 0.6 7.32 13 Safedpura-3 8.45 0.20 174 199 1862 472 0.5 1.2 5.21 14 Hapur-1 7.83 0.67 198 134 1475 431 3.2 1.4 7.07 15 Hapur-2 8.83 0.27 250 193 1684 471 0.5 0.6 7.80 Mean 8.55 0.34 274 150 1646 463 2.2 2.5 8.65 CV (%) 4.67 50.9 55.3 40.1 22.1 11.1 63.1 100 47.7 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 283 Irrigation water quality parameters The irrigation water quality parameters of rose growing areas of UP (Table 3) and Rajasthan (Table 4) were analyzed and the results revealed that pH of the water samples were slightly alkaline in nature. Particularly water samples of UP had pH of 7.53-8.36, and water samples of Rajasthan had 7.23-7.70 pH range. It showed that irrigation waters of both the region had slightly higher pH (i.e.,) above the neutral pH (6.5-7.5). In case of EC, it ranged from 0.07-2.44 dS m-1 in UP samples and 0.45-2.63 dS m-1 in Rajastha n samples and few samples fr om Pali, Haldigati and Udaipur (Rajasthan), and Etah and Aligarh (UP) had higher EC (>1 dS m-1). The cationic concentrations of the samples were within the safe S.No. Location pH EC Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ HCO3 - Cl- ESP (dS (mg (mg (mg (mg (meq (meq (%) m-1) kg-1) kg-1) kg-1) kg-1) 100 g-1) 100 g-1) 1 Chikada, 7.18 0.35 1223 68 2760 428 3.0 0.8 2.94 Udaipur 2 Fatehnagar, 8.29 0.33 1341 123 2617 497 2.3 1.0 24.9 Udaipur 3 Haldigati-1 7.67 0.35 194 367 2923 508 2.4 0.6 4.09 4 Haldigati-2 7.93 0.31 207 103 2140 493 3.0 5.0 5.63 5 Haldigati-3 8.08 0.18 168 187 2559 454 3.2 3.0 4.11 6 Haldigati-4 7.55 4.59 1575 228 1633 483 2.2 2.0 34.9 7 Arathwada 8.42 0.15 195 65 1289 409 0.3 1.8 7.80 8 Posalia 8.02 0.15 138 119 1913 410 0.5 2.0 4.32 9 Balarwa-1 7.95 0.14 128 107 1677 289 0.5 1.2 4.79 10 Balarwa-2 8.05 0.14 207 180 1719 313 3.0 5.0 7.16 11 Balarwa-3 7.87 0.24 138 174 1724 311 2.5 3.6 4.89 12 Balarwa-4 7.83 0.37 186 172 1696 313 3.8 3.0 6.55 13 KVK, Pali 8.02 0.45 428 222 2045 404 10.1 13.0 11.6 Mean 7.91 0.60 387 163 2053 409 2.83 3.23 9.52 CV (%) 4.01 202 125 49.9 24.8 19.3 86.7 102 100 Table 2. Soil characteristics of rose growing areas of Rajasthan range for K and Ca, but Na and Mg were higher than the FAO threshold levels in some samples (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Further SAR of the water samples of UP region was 2.4-10.5 (4.5 meq L-1) and Rajasthan region was 2.92-10.3 (5.41 meq L-1). The SSP of the water samples were also very high that ranged from 33.5-82. 5% in UP samples and 45.7-75. 7% in Rajasthan samples. Most of the samples had higher SAR (more than 3) and SSP (>50%), which indicated presence of more Na than other cations. It was also reflected in higher pH of water samples. The SSP and the SAR were important factors for studying sodium hazards. The water samples with greater than 50% SSP and more than 3 (meq L-1) SAR might result in accumula tion of sodium in soil tha t ca use the Assessment of soil and water quality status of rose growing areas J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 284 br ea kdown of physica l pr oper ties a nd r educe permeability of soil, and stunted growth in plants (Joshi et al. 2009). The bicarbonate content was also higher than threshold value of 1.5 meq L-1 in both the region, as per the FAO guidelines. The chloride concentration of the samples were within the safe limit (below 3 meq L-1) in some samples and exceeded in some samples as in soil samples of Pali (17.5 meq L -1) which wa s excessively high. Necessa r y precautionary measures could be taken while using the poor quality waters for irrigation over a longer period, because these lead to accumulations of salts and other hazards in the soil become harmful to production system. CONCLUSIONS In comparison with other crop species, rose crop is highly sensitive to salinity and alkalinity. In the current study, it has been observed that most of the soil and water samples of the rose growing areas of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan are degraded due to alkalinity, sodium and bicarbonate hazards, and in some cases chloride hazards and salinity problems. Long term use of marginal quality water for irrigation can further aggravate the problems of soil salinity and alkalinity. Therefore, proper precautionary measures, reclamation and management of degraded soils and marginal qua lity wa ters is inevitable for susta ining the production system. Table 3. Irrigation water quality of rose growing areas of Uttar Pradesh S.No. Location pH EC Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ HCO3 - Cl- SAR SSP (dS (mg (mg (mg (mg (meq (meq (meq (%) m-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1)1/2 1 Lucknow 7.59 0.65 5.28 0.02 2.98 0.51 5.0 0.6 4.0 60.3 2 Bashirpur 7.66 0.48 6.26 0.03 0.75 0.58 5.2 1.2 7.7 82.5 Khannoj 3 Bashirpur 8.32 0.07 16.9 0.02 3.5 1.67 1.0 0.6 10.5 76.6 Khannoj 4 Narora, Etah 7.55 2.44 3.87 0.08 2.81 2.6 7.0 5.0 2.4 42.2 5 Narora, Etah 7.54 0.76 8.83 0.08 3.38 3.87 5.1 0.6 4.6 55.1 6 Sarkari Gram, 7.53 1.00 8.75 0.02 3.51 6.34 3.8 1.8 3.9 47.1 Awaghad 7 Jagdevpura, 7.77 0.63 6.20 0.01 4.54 6.00 3.9 1.7 2.7 37.1 Hasayan 8 Jagdevpura, 7.7 2.07 5.28 0.01 3.60 1.67 3.8 0.2 3.3 50.1 Hasayan 9 Safed pura, 7.63 0.60 6.26 0.04 1.56 6.26 4.1 1.2 3.2 44.6 Alighar 10 Hapur 7.53 0.85 6.08 0.04 5.10 7.07 5.0 2.0 2.5 33.5 Mean 7.68 0.96 7.37 0.04 3.17 3.66 4.39 1.5 4.5 52.9 CV (%) 3.10 76.7 49.8 74.1 40.2 70.3 35.0 92.0 58.8 30.6 FAO threshold (Ayers 6.5- 1.0 3.0 0.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 50.0 and Westcot,1985) 8.0 Varalakshmi et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 285 Table 4. Irrigation water quality of rose growing areas of Rajasthan S.No. Location pH EC Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ HCO3 - Cl- SAR SSP (dS (mg (mg (mg (mg (meq (meq (meq (%) m-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1) L-1)1/2 1 Chapiri, 7.70 0.62 5.86 0.087 1.73 1.75 5.8 0.8 4.44 63.1 Udaipur 2 Chikada, 7.59 1.05 8.74 0.032 1.01 1.80 7.1 3.0 7.37 75.7 Udaipur 3 Fatehnagar, 7.51 1.57 15.90 0.043 3.50 2.08 10.0 5.0 9.52 74.1 Udaipur 4 Haldigati-1 7.52 0.45 4.86 0.076 1.56 1.95 5.3 1.2 3.67 58.4 5 Haldigati-2 7.32 1.76 7.74 0.076 4.54 2.24 10.9 3.6 4.20 53.5 6 Posalia 7.31 0.99 7.57 0.043 2.33 1.59 5.1 3.0 5.41 66.0 7 Balarwa-1 7.50 0.53 5.18 0.022 3.81 1.82 3.0 2.0 3.09 48.0 8 Balarwa-2 7.56 0.63 5.12 0.043 4.25 1.88 4.0 1.8 2.92 45.7 9 Balarwa-3 7.58 0.62 5.27 0.011 3.60 1.82 3.8 2.0 3.20 49.4 10 KVK, Pali 7.23 2.63 20.8 0.151 6.01 2.09 3.9 17.5 10.3 72.1 Mean 7.48 1.09 8.70 0.06 3.23 1.90 5.89 3.9 5.42 60.6 CV (%) 1.98 64.7 61.8 69.9 48.1 10.0 45.5 123 50.3 18.6 FAO threshold (Ayers 6.5- 1.0 3.0 0.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 50.0 and Westcot,1985) 8.0 REFERENCES Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Pa per. 29 Rev. 1. Food and Agricultur e Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Bernstein, L., Francois, L.E. and Clark, R.A.1972.Salt toler a nce of or na menta l shr ubs a nd groundcovers. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.,97:550– 556. Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R.1999. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils. 12thed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Ca sta la nelli, C. 2009. Identifying nutr itiona l deficiencies in the home ga rden. Western Austr a lia n Agr icultur e Author ity, www.agric.wa.gov.au. Chapman, H.D. 1965. Cation-exchange capacity. In: Black, C.A. (ed.). Methods of soilanalysis - Chemical and microbiological pr operties. Agron., 9:891-901. Cox, L. and Koenig, R. 2010. Solutions to soil problems. II. High pH (alkaline soil). Utah State University Cooperative extension series. Havlin, J., Beaton, J.D., Tisdale, S.L. and Nelson, W.L. 1999. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: An Introduction to Nutrient Management. 6thed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hong, C.Y., Chao, Y.Y., Yang, M.Y., Cho, S.C. andHuei Kao, C. 2009. Na+ but not Cl– or osmotic stress is involved in NaCl-induced expression of glutathione reductase in roots of Assessment of soil and water quality status of rose growing areas J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 286 rice seedlings. J. Plant Physiol.,166:1598– 1606. Jones, J.B. 2012. Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility Manual. 2nd ed. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Joshi, D.M., Kumar, A. and Agrawal, N. 2009. Assessment of the irrigation water quality of river Ganga in Haridwar District. Rasayan J. Chem.,2: 285–292. Mandal, A.K., Obi Reddy, G.P. and Ravisankar, T. 2011. Digital database of salt affected soils in India using Geographic Information System. J. Soil Salinity Water Qual., 3(1): 16-29. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Mengel, K. 1994. Iron availability in plant tissues- iron chlorosis on calcareous soils. J. Plant Soil .,165: 275–283. Miller, J. O. 2016. Soil pH Affects Nutr ient Availability. Technical Report, University of Ma r yla nd Extension, DOI: 10. 13140/ RG.2.1.2423.5768. Motesha r eza deha , B. , Hesa m-Ar efia , A. a nd Sa va ghebia , Gh. R. 2017. T he effect of bicarbonate on iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) uptakes by soybean varieties. Desert.,22(2):145-155. Munns, R. and Tester, M.2008. Mechanisms of sa linity toler a nce. Annual Rev. Plant Biol.,59:651-681. Richards, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. US Salinity Laboratory Sta ff, US Depa r tment of Agr icultur e, Washington DC. Sachan, A.K., Arun Kumar, Rajput, M.M. and Arti Katiyar. 2014. Economics of production and marketing of rose flowers in Kannauj district of Uttar Pradesh. Hort.Flora. Res. Spectrum.,3 (1): 29-34. Shekhawat, D. 2012. A Study of Supply Chain Practices and Marketing Prospects of Rose Flower in Ajmer District of Rajasthan. M.Sc. T hesis. Swa mi Keshwa na nd Ra ja stha n Agricultural University, Bikaner. Tim, O., “https://www.agril.wa.gov.au/david-hall”\0 “view prafile” Hall, D. and Lemon, J. 2019. Identifying dispersive (sodic) soils. Agriculture and Food, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Government fo Western Australia. Available online : https:// www.agric.wa.gov.au/dispersive and - sodic - soils / identifying - dispersive - sodic - soils. Tsai, Y.C., Hong, C.Y., Liu, L.F. and Kao, H. 2004. Relative importance of Na+ and Cl– in NaCl- induced antioxidant systems in roots of rice seedlings. Physiol. Plantarum.,122:86–94. Urban, I. 2003. Inûuences of abiotic factors in growth and development, p. 369–374. In: Encyclopedia of rose science. Robert, A.V., Debener, T. and Gudin, S. (eds.). Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA. White, P.J. and Broadley, M.R. 2001. Chloride in soils and its uptake and movement within the plant: a review. Annals Bot.,88:967–988. Xu, G., Magen, H., Tarchitzky, J. and Kafkafi, U. 2000. Advances in chloride nutrition of plants. Adv. Agron.,68:97–150. (Received on 13.01.2021, Revised on 29.07.2021 and Accepted on 30.07.2021) Varalakshmi et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 280-286, 2021 00 Contents.pdf 01 Shalini.pdf 02 Sheikh.pdf 03 Debanath.pdf 04 Nimbolkar.pdf 05 Satisha.pdf 06 Kaur.pdf 08 Varsha.pdf 09 Ravishankar.pdf 10 Swamini.pdf 11 Vijaykumar.pdf 12 Usha bharathi.pdf 13 Yogalakshmi.pdf 14 Adams.pdf 15 Lakshman.pdf 16 Yella swami.pdf 17 Varalakshmi.pdf 18 Sharon.pdf 22 Event Report.pdf