53 2
1401 ) 507 - 493
( Vol 53, No 2, Summer 2022 (493-507)
DOI:10.22059/ijhs.2021.307872.1832
* Corresponding author E-mail:[email protected]
:
! "#
) % &
Citrus unshiu cv. Miyagawa (
1 (
& +,- *
2
1 .
! " #
$
% & ' & ( & )'
* + '
*
&
2 .
* )'
%- %. & / 0 & ' & ( %$ ! " #
& * ' +*
:23 * 4* ) 1
/ 6 / 1399 - : *;< 4*
26 / 8 / 1400
(
/ 0
! " # $%&' (
) *+ ,- ./
0 1 -
! "
( . 3 4 +
%5 6 )7 ,- ./
( ! 7 %9 : ;) =
!- 4 ,- ./ . > ( ; ? @ A ;
B % C D 3 4 + 7 $ EF > G H :
.
7 %9 I 3 H 3 &
3 J
%5 :
150 ) 300 400
% 4 ( 0 :P -* > Q*- . HR;
F
= 7 %9 : ; ! 6 " ? ! 7 ,- ./ S- .
!- T A 7 : R > : 3
/ 6
34 / 2 - . > - ,- *> / 7 4 ,- ./ S
0 3 7 %T X G ? !
7 )7 G9 J :
7 ? @ $%&' ,- *> AY 7 $%&' XZ @ S- 3 7 G9 [ :
: D . > - , / :
&
300
%
! ) 4 (
: & & R . 3 # \@ 3 - & &+ $%&' -
)
# \@ 3
D , 3 R] :
: ),- ./ - S- ^ - . # H-
X G
%5 300
% . %_ > 4 ( . T
25 T H( 4 & . `J . 40
. `J .
_ H( 4 &
. 3
/1 7 \@ 3 ) - & 3 0 :
. ! )7 %9 : ; ): /
Trends of carbohydrate changes and the effect of NAA on yield and alternate bearing of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin(Citrus unshiu cv. Miyagawa)
Ali Asadi Kangarshahi1* and Negin Akhlaghi Amiri2
1. Associate Professor of Soil and Water Department, Mazandaran Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Sari, Iran
2. Assistant Professor of HorticultureCrops Research Department, Mazandaran Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Sari,Iran
(Received: Aug. 23, 2020 - Accepted: Nov. 17, 2021) ABSTRACT
In order to investigate the state of carbohydrates and the effect of naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) application on yield and alternate bearing of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin, two separate experiments were performed an Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin oechard. In the first experiment, the trend of changes in the concentration of carbohydrates (soluble sugars and starches) in the leaves and roots of trees were investigated. The second experiment were performed as randomized complete blocks design with 4 replications during 7 years. Treatments included: control; 150, 300 and 450 mg/l NAA spraying before physiological abscission of fruitlets. The results of the first experiment showed that the average changes of starch and soluble sugars in foliar leaves and roots were about 6.3 times and 2.34 times higher, respectively. The results of the second experiment showed that NAA application in the first stage of fruit growth in “on” years, increased yield in “off” years, and gradually yield variation in “on” and “off” years decreased. So that treatment 300 mg NAA l-1 had the highest cumulative yield and the lowest alternate bearing index. However, all NAA treatments reduced alternate bearing index compare to control, significantly. Therefore, based on the results of this project to modulate alternate bearing, spray NAA in “on” at a concentration of 300 milligrams per liter from 25 days after flowering to about 40 days after flowering is recommended.
Keywords: Alternate bearing index, chemical thinners, soluble sugars, starch.
3& 4&
8 ' 3 &'* :.;< - .= > ?. $ !%
: * 4@* :.;< 4A B : @+ > B : *
! CA D + . .
8 ' $ E !%
F$ ?.
! G - @( )'+ F@* >E % )%
) (Monselise & Goldschmidt, 1982
HD'= .
:. D I !5A - @(
8 ' -#5E 3A !%
J5E KL MN ' > % >( .N > H*
8 ' )'+ - @( O P " E !%
&+ +
! : Q R % SA T %
- U . .L %. 1 %
8 ' 3A ) 1. AI *.+ VL. !%
: * - @(
> H* ?) !1 . % .N
>(
! ?)''( ) 1. % .E( ; " - O )+ . J5E W 3A ' .)% " /0 H<
8 ' - 6 7 JAX H$ ' !%
! A A)
! V* ' ) ) 2 J5E 3A JY )+ .
)
Asadi Kangarshahi, 2019; Arzani & AKhlaghi Amrii, 2000
.(
>
8 ' !6( .N >* ?. $ !%
J< HA )< J >( ?) (Z ?) 7 J 1 %
JT
>A[, H D\ !%
: D $
. .%
!6$ % J< HA )< .H*
%
JT P )+ 3 H " I ! + AI : Y > !%
%
8 ' K+B / !EA I !EA .H* !%
>A[, H D\
!A [] = '7 ? $Z $
$ 56 7 ?. J 5E ^A FU !EA I ) . .% : D / - @(
F + !6$ % I
56 7 ?. J 5E ) 6( J .7 8 ' ) H* $ !%
Asadi Kangarshahi,
2019; Turkals et al., 2013
?. )D ^% (.(
>_
%
?. >D*. : JY :.6< %
!$ ! R
$ `.1.'U $ JY !A [] = '7 aA !A [] = '7 !* * ^A FU VL.
- ) %. ( F '*.
- ) %. ( a O % %
H " ^% ( ? $Z
! : D J( >( .
. .%
J< J 5E % 8 ' ^% ( !%)6T %
)' % /. !%
)
Turkals et al., 2013;
Goldschmidt, 2005
(.
$
!% 8 ' : *
!1 . %
! + ) 1. ! b' :.;<
'(
' ) cX. D : * 4A
X 56 7
: * )D d( 56 7 )+
.
$ :.;< R : * ?. AI )D
4_.(
V* ' + H 2 ( H67 > >()' % .* I
: * &A e NI .)' + .$ !U ( ; "
:.;< d(
W)+ ?) J 5E ?. )D
56 7 ^% ( J 1 > 3A ' H*
f1 $ ) B
! ^% ( )]
.) A
? E+ )D - Q Q<
)+
?. AI )D .L :.;< R : * >(
g7 >( H$
! (4' *) ?)''( e ; )'
" e ; V@*
- ) %. ( db7 H P )+ %
%
!A [] . : Q + >O + ?) !A .%
- ) %. (
! ^% ( >EA > % : Y 3A .) A
>EA . ?) )A) !&'* T _ >EA !A [] = '7 8[L
! > * ( .
.@ ( .
!A [] = '7 F +
!+. .% I . :# $ VL.
! I T.6L V@* J .7 3A h. O .
5E
! :.;< d( : * JT >+ .L J . T
.$ !A + . c )O H$ :.;< d( : * ?)'AB : *
! ! AI ) )'(
Asadi Kangarshahi,
2011; Goldschmidt & Golomb, 1982; Janick,
.
1982; Jones et al., 1974
(.
3A ' i
% A >( !
H " )'+ . :.;< R : *
^% ( )
&
Akhlaghi Amiri, 2000 Arzani
( ?. ?I )+
3 'j % :.;< d( : * JT >+ .L J 5E
)'% ^A FU JA)D VL.
>$ _ 8 '
!%
; " .* ^A FU )]
! )+ T )
Akhlaghi
Amiri & Asadi Kangarshahi, 2009b
(.
i FT
! E+ C6 k % lm* >( )%
>+ *B - ) %. ( I
>+ .L FA % PIX JT %
H*
)
Goldschmidt, 1999; Goldschmidt & Koch,
(1996
: * ?)''( )< J 7 K' !%)6T a" . H67 > + : * !%)6T P)7 A ^% ( H* +
- ) %. ( )A) > 6k 3 &'* :.;< n*. %
: * !6@" B H*
)
Guardiola, 2000 (
?. AI )D .
F /. J 7 3A K :.;< R : * - ) %. (
> ) % H* - @( $ (> * E+ ?oA
! % U > :.;< R : * ?. 3A ` + > *. R
- ) %. ( J5 >
a ' I )A >( I + %
. 3 L F '*. U ) @+ !U ( a ' 3A T
! ? 2 * ? $Z a ' I .
)
Monselise &
Goldschmidt, 1982; Verreynne, 2005
( . 3A '
?. )D 3A K ?. >D*. ) ? :.N %
8 ' -) > * E+ F /. J 7 !%
> .H* - @(
.N - @( $ !6(
>m
JT )D 3 !*.5D L : * ?) J 5E %
?. )D )D ^% ( .L J@" : * %
?.
4' %
?)''(
JT P &'% I H A % !%
! ^A FU )D J;U )%
(Garcia-Luis et al.,
1995)
.
H* >'AF% R ! ! * 4' !6( .N >
K' 4' .H* P O+ J " )< lm*
5 :. D i 4A !A E A[R
p ?)E+ B > AI >L. .'( !1 H*
) ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ .H*
> ? 2 * (NAA
- @( ?)''( 4' J 7 4A .'7 V ( 3A H* ?) H@/ 5A B )A .6U )'+
4' )Q &A !A ?)''( 4' - @ ( > %
!m < nA $ nA > >L.
,
> .H*
^A IB : Y % J + R )D %
?. H 2 ( ?I )+ .@K ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
H* ?) i FT )
Monselise & Goldschmidt,
2011; Wheaton & Stewart, 1973
3 1 2+ > .(
?)''( 4' 4A .'7 > ) * 4 * >L. .'(
H* ?)E+ AI ?)''( 4' J 7 q % J Q
.H* ?)E+ H@/ )A .6U - @( F + &A JT 4'
?. % ! :.;< R : * %
8 ' >@6] iI V * $ !%
- @(
> i 3A V * $ .H*
.N
8 ' : '( F B H QU.
E !%
! ? 2 * P "
3 1 2+ I ? 2 * H QU. . .
!&+ + C6 k P " ?. 4' ) * 4 * ) H* ?) i FT
Rebolledo et al., 2012;
Galliani et al., 1975; Ouma, 2012
.(
oR
^%
! E+ C6 k % I 4' >( )%
^A FU VL. B : * - @( $ P &'%
! r > * E+ F r > * E+ F ^A FU . .
>O + ?. J 5E )= ^A FU VL. F +
! B I sR J;U 56 7 ^A FU
>( ! " . . I
> ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
J 7 .'7 :.N ?)''( 4'
? 2 * :.;< R : * `.1.AF U iFA >6Y )D : * 56 7 ^% ( L : * 56 7 .
HU A )% .$ ^A FU ( + : *) )
Lewis et al., 1964;
Ouma, 2012
^% oR tA + .(
%
Galliani et al.
) e ; !&+ + $ 4' >( E+ (1975
3 1 2+
> B : * ) * 4 * >$ _ /. .N
8 ' . ^% ( !%
4' >L I ' N
B e ; I Hb6] ?)''( 4' J 7 !T)''(
. . ^A IB )A d" %
: *
!&+ + HE( $ % : .E+ %
>( .N > .H* i T : Y H7 * > A lm*
!&+ + 3A HE( AI I ^ )+I * %
30
!&+ + 3A .H* 5% F%
; " iI %
: Q R I E ) H* : + %
Akhlaghi Amiri &
Asadi Kangarshahi, 2014
!ToA I .(
3A I %
!&+ + ) H*.R H1.K* V* ' ) * X )'" %
! B .)
!&+ + 3A 3A ' HD'= I ! K ^k %
> .)' % )+I - @(
8 ' : Y % )A) !%
p ?oA >
I 3 A R 56 7 3 &+ 3 %
B -#5E
! % 8 ' .) ?I )+ 56 7 !%
/ T)''() 1. f1 $ .* HA K+ ?. H 2 ( . AI P " 3A K I !5A . >D1 m 3A
T P + > .E+ !&+ + )
Miyagawa
( ) P O+
- ) %. ( H D\ 3 D B !6= e)%
> * E+) %
: * $ >EA r (:.6< %)'"
%
)+ . >( H* ! A A) - 6 7 3 'j % + B 8 ' ^% ( !%
)'( e[Y A ? I e)% a"
?. 4' ^A IB 3A % L : *
:.;< R A)D
^% ( : * 3A ?. )D J
d( : * ?. J 5E ^A FU ? $Z . > 6k .H* )D :.;<
3 1 2+ I ? 2 * 5 3A '
) : >6Y ?. 4' ) * 4A) * ?.
.HU T " !* . !% 8 ' ^% (
5 &
- ) %. ( - , )+ !* .b' >
%
!% 8 ' 56 7 ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ /0 T .E+ !&+ + )
Citrus unshiu cv. Miyagawa
(
.) P O+ FO ^A IB
p >Dm" 4A: .E+ !&+ +
T
t+ + >A R I ^ 3* )
20 (: * 8 ' J5E >(
H !%
* K :
* !+ @] )Y )
( * H )K 8 k +
!1 . : * ^ -) > .)
>+. +
% I r r !+ %
*
>$
% J;U
. R L
>EA $ m" @ U %
! + * d + I ( v !L $ > Y P.* 4A
)Y M 7 $ 50
80
! + *
> K W $
) )
Akhlaghi Amiri & Asadi Kangarshahi, 2014
(
> * E+ :.6< %)'" Hb6]
B
?I )+ % T
) )
Dubois et al. 1956
? sx* .(
>AFO . %
T " J 6<
.)' U
?I )+
:.6< %)'" T
>+. + > ) > * E+
) >EA r % 1
/ 0 > K ( P T
:.+ :.6< ?) 80
-) > ? FU )=
30
P Y >Q "
30 sx* .) ? " z. 6* >L
>+. + -) > % 10
)`. 2A + * >Q "
4500
? ;7 ? . + (>Q "
>+. + ?)+ " >
%
J 7 ? " P Y :.+ FU )O
? ;7 :.6< I .) 5 `. 2A + * d + ?) > K %
!6
!6 t'R > 1 ? FU B > +B 1
v.N ?) 630
> sx*.) ?)+ .$ .+ +
>+. + ?)+ "
% 30
!6 >* 4A )A 6( ) * 1
> dg% ? FU i.L {'* )7 )'_ )=
W.6 H7 * >* -) ! Y %
125
) * I )D .) ? " z. 6* >L :.N ) e = I )D ?)+ * dOY > K+B |
v.
630
?)+ .$ . U 5x* ? & * .+ + )
)
Dubois et al., 1956
.(
p >Dm" 4A > 1 - D1 m !N :
.E+ !&+ + T
* K :
* )Y )
( * H )K !+ @]
8 k + )
>
.N >(
} <1 I 3 'j % ?I )+ 3* b+ I p 3A $ > E c @A Q ! A A) )+ .
. ^A IB P O+ I J@"
>+. + i M m $ I W $ % )+ * %
) ) > K
Akhlaghi Amiri & Asadi Kangarshahi,
2014a
!ToA !$ sx* .(
% 5AF U !
!A
W $
?I )+ % ) T
(Ahyaee, 1998)
.
>+. + %
I ? $ r r I
!+ %
*
>$
% % . R L J;U > K H$
) )
Asadi Kangarshahi & Akhlaghi Amiri, 2014a
( B !A [] = '7 F ` + J @" I %
s F'&' 3%B dAF ' d * R 2 U
?I )+
) T
(Emami, 1996)
^A IB . V1 "
W.6 ~ N 5 K_ !U ; J ( %
5 %
h. O : * H2% -) > H$ J 32
.E+ !&+ + H$ >6=
) 5A c @A Q ?I )+ 3*
(
) P O+
% .
J
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 P T • 1
T4
. :.6<
4 * 3 1 2+ ! R
) * Hb6]
400
!6 .)+ . 1 P T )D
)Y 5% $ 500
. >6=
)Q e ;
!A % .(
% > 6(
> >L.
3 &+
)Q !A [] = '7 3 'j % r W $
3 &+
56 7
$
> ) P O+
>( .N
^A IB : : * 160
` + P T.6 ( 100
) d * R P T.6 (
K2O
( 60 ) 2 U P T.6 (
P2O5
(
50 dAF ' - 21.* P T.6 ( .) e ; 5%
)Y ( + : *) ^A IB P : * 110
P T.6 (
` +
25 ) d * R P T.6 (
K2O
( 20 P T.6 (
) 2 U
P2O5
( 30 P T.6 ( dAF ' - 21.*
5%
) ) e ;
Asadi Kangarshahi, 2020
: * ( %
^ R . + A B : * z * ^A IB )D !' 15 20 P O+ + : * 56 7 ^A FU )=
.) ` +
>
d +. B - 21.* - .=
? >*
>$ * ) h I : >6Y >6Y ) %
$
)'2*
(? 3A U n*
>6Y J 5E I sR P
) ?.
$ $ n* HEK@A
? (
>6Y
* P.
>_. 4A`.1.AF U iFA I sR
$ ) % $
? n*
d * R (
>
J5 d * R - 21.*
dAF '
>
J5 dAF ' - 21.*
) 20 J 5E I sR )=
?.
35 `.1.AF U iFA >6Y )=
45 sR )=
?. >D*. h I ( %
2 U .(
) * a@' I
) ) 3 4A 2 U
Asadi Kangarshahi & Akhlaghi
Amiri, 2014
JT I J@" ` + e ; .(
!%
>
- .=
n Q A * !( $ W * 3 'j % ` + %
dAF ' d * R e ; B .( J5 > 2 U
? m" B d * n*.
:.6< .) P O+
! R
4A`.1.AF U iFA I I J@" ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
(? $ P > + JA ) :.;< R : * >+
.) P O+
d* )'+ !7 I - 6 7 ) J;U :.N
B ! R
? m") .+ - .= >
e N
CA
? m" ! $ % 5_
K_ )Y % 1
? m" >6= U •H7 * 5_
)Y .+ % % 70
! + * >* )Y ? HEK@A B I • H7 * K_ )Y ? $ H7 *
•H7 * q'R )Y ? .A K n*. .N > B
HEK@A t'R ? $ I H2% ?
I >* .A K I (
C67 aU ? ] I % %
>
: 7 5A .N )
.
)D 3 D 56 7 F ) J;U A R 25
)7
?.
>
% I !U ; .N 5
>+. +
!$
- =.;$
!2 ( (?. m" I )
?I )+ K+B ) T
?. m" $ 56 7 !6( .N >
I ?.
8 ' f$
!%
>
€* R .'7 b+ !% T %
) > U T .
8 ' f$ 3 D H@ + ) !%
: * 56 7 J\ 2 56 7 h. O > !1 . %
>@* < : * % B h. O I sx* )A T
%
) 3 &+
>m 1 ) > U T ( )
Asadi Kangarshahi
et al., 2011
8 ' f$ >@* < i .(
> !%
:H* AI - .= > !\ A
) 1 (
I = ×
+ + + ⋯ + .
!% 8 ' f$ :I
a1 ……an
: * 56 7 : !1 . %
: * )D :n
.^A IB %
A R
? > 6(
P + I ? 2 * J= Y % FU
B
SPSS
. IB
s+ A >AFO . F
V(
"
I ? 2 * >D1 m . - 2= 3 &+ > A Q HU T . IB
>' )'_
) P O+ 35+
.
67 89
L I J@" $ r W $ >AFO tA + : )L V > ^A IB %
1 2 ?) ? B
: )L) W $ >AFO tA + .H*
1
! E+ ( )%
HU W $ >(
AI 4%B 3 &'* @ +
= '7 ? 2 * H 6 " b+ I H* d( !1B ? W $ - @( $ !A []
!5%B %
AI >' d * R 8.6m >' 2 U s F'&' 3%B d( >' dAF '
) )' " 8.6m >'
Asadi Kangarshahi,
* .(2019
: )L r >AFO tA + z
F'&' dAF ' d * R ` + Hb6]
. 3%B d 6( 2 U Hb6] d( >' ) )+ . 8.6m >'
Asadi Kangarshahi,
JY I !$ !+ I dA.Q 3 'j % .(2019
>Qm' T .E+ !&+ + `.1.'U ) 6(
+ !EA IB
? s+ A >AFO tA V > %
: )L % 3 4 >AFO tA + .H* ?) ? E+
- 2= !% 8 ' f$ V( s+ A : )L) ! AI . 4
3 1 2+ / >( E+ (
!% 8 ' f$ ) * 4 * 56 7
?. I )= 4A lm* ?. m"
lm*
!'D )= t'R 3 1 2+ J Q / . .
I !% 8 ' f$ : * ) * 4 * ?. 56 7 )= t'R lm* ?. m"
!'D )= 4A lm*
. .
L : ) 1 .
^A IB L I J@" W $ >AFO tA + .
Table 1. Soil analysis results before running the experiment.
Cu Mn Zn Fe Mg K
P O.M T.N.V.
pH CEC EC
Depth
mg/kg soil
%
% cmol/kg
dS/m cm
1.01 3.7 1.5 4.6 545 447
21 1.98 25
23.5 7.7
0.97 0-30
0.98 3.6 1.4 5.2 489 248
12 1.30 28
25 7.9
1.24 31-60
Soil texture: Clay loam
: )L 2 .
^A IB L I J@" r >AFO tA + .
Table 2. Leaf analysis results before running the experiment.
B Cu Mn
Zn Fe Ca Mg K
P Concentration in leaf N
g/g leaf dry weightµ
% Based on leaf dry weight
54 15.30 22.12
18.20 195
4.30 0.27 0.94 0.16 2.10 Sample
: )L 3 !"#$ !% &'( )* ) )+I | T .E+ !&+ + ) `.1.'U JY . 1395
(
Table 3. Phenological growth stages of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin in east of Mazandaran (Asadi Kangarshahi & AkhlaghiAmiri, 2016)
Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin Phonological growth
Fruit development
30 March – 9 April Spring shoot
-
25- 30 April Hollow ball
Phase I Beginning of fruit set 5 – 15 May
5 – 10 June Beginning of physiological fruit drop
15 – 20 June End of physiological fruit drop
15 – 20 June Beginning of cell enlargement
Phase II Beginning of autumn shoot 1 – 6 September
6 – 11 September Beginning of fruit colouring (colour – break)
16 – 21 September Fruit ripe for picking
20 September – 20 October Fruit ripe for consumption
Phase III
1 – 11 November End of autumn shoot
-
: )L 4 V( s+ A >AFO tA + . ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ /
T .E+ !&+ + ?. - 2= !$ !% 8 ' f$
.
Table 4. Results of combined analysis of variance of the effect of naphthalene acetic acid on alternate bearing index and some traits of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin fruit.
Mean of squares Source of df
Variation Alternate bearing index Fruit weight Fruit diameter Fruit yield
5411**
712**
1127* 0.359**
3 NAA
14287**
1698* 12045*
0.165* 6
Year
923**
81* 1989*
0.121* 18
NAA × year
21.81 11.98
14.25 15.98
- CV%
.@+ V > :* * ns
- 2
!'D - 2
!'D : Y lm*
5 1 .)=
ns, *, **: Non-significantly difference, and significantly difference at 5% and 1% of probability level, respectively.
:.6< %)'" > * E+ - , tA + : * .E+ !&+ + $ + B %
: *
! E+ !1 . % - , 3 &+ >( )%
>EA > * E+
% : * + B %
> * E+ )Q 3 &+ >( .N > . AI
>EA )Y + : * % 3
/ 6 . B : *
r - , 3A )Y %
34 / 2 .
: )L) 5 r %)'" - , 3 &+ .(
%
: * > * E+ - , > H@ + + B %
( %)'" )Q 3 &+ >( .N > .
>EA :.6<
r % + : * V > %
)Y 3 / 1 22 / 1 . B : * : )L)
5 > .(
^% oR tA + !6( .N
! E+ C6 k % )%
- ) %. ( !D" ? $Z .'7 > > * E+ >(
%
! J 7 X Hb6] H* 35 )'(
4A > 6k J ( .N > @A Q sx* ) A a O P )+
. . $ : I VL. !% T ! Y .
! b+ > 3A ' - ) %. ( >( )*
8 ' %
3 'j % ?. p.6 J 5E !%)6T !%
.)' > /. ^Q+ ) 1. )A R
- ) %. ( )Q
^Q+ > * E+ ?oA > %
$ !% 8 ' -) d b' ! K >D*. I K J;U :.N )+ - @(
JT
>$ * ) ?. J 5E !A U.5 % %
> .L ` + AI \ Q ? K ` + > I + `.1.'U I ? 3A >( .N
. U )'AB U n*. >( H* )Q I E F '*
! ) 1.
- ) %. ( >O + . ? $Z %
! e ; W <
) )+.
Schalk, 2012;
Guardiola, 2000
.(
: )L 5
>EA r > * E+ :.6< %)'" - , . : *) B : * T .E+ !&+ + $ @ U %
( R
( d( : *) + .
Table 5. Changes of soluble sugars and starch in leaves and fibrous roots of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin trees inon year and off year.
Carbohydrate Organs Consecutive Years
On Off On Off On Off
Soluble sugars (mg/g) Leave 96c 115ab 87.5d 121a 98.4c 109.3b
Root 27.7c 56.4ab 31c 53.8b 32.3c 60.1a
Starch (mg/g) Leave 48.3c 117a 46.7c 112.5ab 50.2c 109.7b
Root 21.6c 152.5a 24.4c 146b 26.2c 157.2a
! E+ C6 k )% .
>+ *B lm* >( )%
I
- ) %. (
>+ .L FA % - @( JT %
) H* \
Goldschmidt, 1999; Goldschmidt
& Koch, 1996
!% 8 ' $ .(
?)''( )< J 7 K' !%)6T F + : * !6@" B : * 3 &'* :.;< 4A I sR >( H*
- ) %. ( )A) > 6k VL. >(
% G H* ?)
! ) )%
Gardiola, 2000
3A tA + !6( .N > .(
^% oR tA + ^% oR %
Schalk
) HQ m (2012
i FT >(
(
>EA > * E+ )Q 3 &+
%
)Y + : * - @( $ 10
B : *
r - , 3A . )Y %
6 / 3 . .
*.+
^A IB : * H2% $ 56 7 J5 )
1
! E+ ( 3 1 2+ e ; !6( .N > >( )%
: * ) * 4 * ^A FU VL. :.;< R %
: * $ 56 7 H* ?) :.;< d( %
tA ) >
: * 56 7 e# $ + B %
1 2+ C6 k % / .H* > U A ^% ( 3
) ) * 4 *
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
31 2+ ! R
) * 4 * Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
.
:.6<
) * 4 * 31 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
. :.6<
4 * 31 2+ ! R
) * Hb6]
400
!6 56 7 ( 1 P T
: * $ J5 )^A IB %
2 (
! E+
)%
:.6< I 56 7 3A E >(
31 2+ ! R
) * 4 * Hb6]
300
!6 J= Y 1 P T
: * 56 7 - , .) E+ ^A IB %
: * 56 7 3A E >( .N >
C6 k %
% I V > (d 2% : * : : *)
T3
T3
T1
T3
T1
T3
T1
3A ( H* ?) J= Y % I V > 56 7
T1
T1
T2
T4
T2
T1
T2
!D O 56 7 tA + 3 'j % .) J= Y J5 ) 3 >( E+ F + (
T3
56 7 3A E
: * :.N !D O 3 H ^A IB %
) % A *
T4, T2, T1
!D O 56 7 b+ I (
$
!'D e#
.H )+ .L % / tA +
!% 8 ' f$ ) * 4 * 31 2+ C6 k J5 ) 4 f$ 3A ( 3A E >( E+ (
% I ^A IB 3A !% 8 '
T1
T3
% 3 'j % .) J= Y
T2
T4
f$ F +
) )% > H@ + !% 8 '
T1
( )+ ^% (
lm* B b+ I e# $ 3A 5
!'D )=
C6 k % !% 8 ' f$ . . % ) * 4 * 31 2+
1 4 V >
37 / 0 29 / 0 24 / 0 33 / 0 . .
4 * 31 2+ C6 k % : * / tA + B ^'5 % ) * 3 &+ %
n*. m" I
% J5 ?.
5 10 % > % .H* ?) B
)% > H@ + ?. n*. I ) * 4 * 31 2+
Hb6] 3 )+ ^A FU 4 * 31 2+ C6 k %
!'D e# $ ) * I 3A E .H )+ .L
I ?. n*.
T4
J= Y ^A IB dO'R : *
?. m" !* tA + .) 3A E >( E+ F + %
I ?. n*. m"
T4
J Q ) J= Y
.) ?)% E )% ?. n*. m" 3A ( d%
m" 3A E >( E+ : * 3 ^'(
I ?. n*.
T4
J= Y ^A IB P K_ : *
( .N > .) 3 ( !6
i > % J 7 ! 2 %
! V* ' V* ' Hb6] I )A [1 )''(
(?. ?I )+ ^A FU A !T)''( 4' ) b + . €* R
3 ( !$ e ; .)+. e ; I I !7.'; %
?. `.1.AF U iFA K + ?. J 5E
>_
%
* ^A FU VL. (>+ iFA ) n*. 36 F '
?.
?. iFA % C D\ %
4_.(
! .
.( ( 4' ) 3 ( Hb6] 3 'j %
!7.'; %
?. 4'
>_
> >L. ?. ?I )+ ^A FU A %
?. >D*. `.1.'U >6Y
>_
.H* - 2 %
?. >5+ 'j %
>_
! T F % B H * Y )+.
> %
3 ( e ;
! ( !7.'; % I sR ?oA > .
>D*. P >6Y ?. >+ `.1.AF U iFA
! d( H * Y 3A tA ) > ?.
e ; .
3 ( I 3 U T >6= U 3 A R Hb6] !7.'; % >6Y $ n* I )?. >D*. P >6Y h
>D*. P ?. ?I )+ ! ( / H* 35 (?.
3 ( h.+ > >' K Hb6] : Y % > .) >
) !& `.1.'U >6Y
Greenberg et al., 2006
.(
)A) iFA VL. H* 35 3 ( AI Hb6]
?.
>_
!EA ) !2' / 3 'j % . %
?. H 2 (
?)] OA )'+ % H*.R !'] %
H*.R I ^A FU ?. H*.R H k\ ^A FU ?.
>$ * !T oR ^j R ?.
!EA %) %
) ) > .L
Mupambi, 2010; Sleem et al.,
.(2008
! E+ tA + 3 'j % )+ M m >( )%
J5 ) !% 8 ' 1
)A d 2% : * $ (
*
! " B : : * I E 56 7 )' U T
! dE )'@kA * ^' H67 > )'
: * ? 3 K n* ) dE : * $ 1392
(
>$ * > )A) - $ )+I * %
: * $ 56 7 ^% ( ) $ '@kA * ^' 3A - $ I ! + d 2%
. )
)
Akhlaghi Amiri & Asadi Kangarshahi, 2014b
.(
2 : : * =1) ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ^A IB T .E+ !&+ + $ $ 56 7 : * / .1J5 : * =
P
=3
P.* : * P K_ : * =4
dE : * =5
: * =6
..(d 2%
Figure 1. Effect of year on yield of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin trees in NAA foliar application experiment (1 = first year, 2 = second year, 3 = third year, 4 = fourth year, 5 = sixth year and 6 = seventh year).
J5 2 . / 3 &+ > A Q
!1 . : * H2% T .E+ !&+ + $ 56 7 ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
) =87
: * 1387 : * =88
1388 : * =89
1389 : * =90
1390 : * =91
1391 : * =92
1392 : * =93
1393 .(
Figure 2. Mean comparison effect of NAA on yieldof Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin trees inseven consecutive years (87 = 2008, 88 = 2009, 89 = 2010, 90 = 2011, 91 = 2012, 92 = 2013 and 93 = 2014).
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Yield (kg/tree)
Year
0 100 200 300 400
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
87.75
24.75
103.8
61.5 91.75
34.5 45
89.25
36.25
85
52.5
83.25
62.75 33
100.8
40
98.75
82.5
92
68.5
35.5 93.75
38.75
88.75
43.75
89.25
56
33.75
Yield (kg/tree)
Year
T1 T2 T3 T4
J5 3 . ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q T .E+ !&+ + $ !D O 56 7
)
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
! R ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
.
:.6<
! R ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 3. Mean comparison effect NAA on cumulative yield of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin trees during seven years(T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar application of 450 mg/l NAA).
J5 4 . ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q T .E+ !&+ + !% 8 ' f$
)
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
.
:.6<
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 4. Mean comparison effect of NAA on alternate bearing index of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin during seven years(T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar application of
450 mg/l NAA).
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q .5J5
^A IB !1 . : * H2% T .E+ !&+ + ?. I 3 &+
) : * =87
1387 : * =88
1388 : * =89
1389 : * =90
1390 : * =91
1391 : * =92
1392 : * =93
1393 .(
Figure 5. Mean comparison effect of NAA on average fruit weight of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin in seven consecutive years (87 = 2008, 88 = 2009, 89 = 2010, 90 = 2011, 91 = 2012, 92 = 2013 and 93 = 2014).
300 350 400 450 500 550
T1 T2 T3 T4
b b
a
b
Cumulative yield (kg/tree)
NAA application
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
T1 T2 T3 T4
a
c
d
b
Alternate bearing index
NAA application
0 50 100 150 200
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
e
d cd cd
a
c b
Fruit weight (gr)
Year
.T1)!1 . : * H2% T .E+ !&+ + ?. I 3 &+ ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q .6J5 •)%
T2
.
:.6<
! R ) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 P T
• 1
T4
. :.6<
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 6. Mean comparison effect of NAA on fruit average weight of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin during seven years (T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar application of 450 mg/l NAA).
P : * =Y2 : : * =Y1) T .E+ !&+ + ?. I ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ : * J Q / 3 &+ > A Q .7J5
Y3
P.* : * =
Y4
P K_ : * =
Y5
dO'R : * =
Y6
dE : * =
Y7
d 2% : * =
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
4 * 3 1 2+ ! R
) * Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
. :.6<
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 7. Mean comparison interaction effect of year and NAA on fruit average weight of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin(Y1
= first year, Y2 = second year, Y3 = third year, Y4 = fourth year, Y5 = sixth year and Y6 = seventh year and T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150 mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of 300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar application of 450 mg/l NAA).
=87) !1 . : * H2% T .E+ !&+ + ?. m" 3 &+ ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q .8J5 : * 1387 : * =88
1388 : * =89
1389 : * =90
1390 : * =91
1391 : * =92
1392 : * =93
1393 .(
Figure 8. Mean comparison effect of NAA on fruit average diameter of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin in seven consecutive years (87 = 2008, 88 = 2009, 89 = 2010, 90 = 2011, 91 = 2012, 92 = 2013 and 93 = 2014).
98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112
T1 T2 T3 T4
b
a a a
Fruit weight (gr)
NAA application
0 50 100 150 200 250
Fruit weight (gr)
Intraction of year and NAA treatments
30 40 50 60 70 80
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
d
ab
c
a b ab b
Fruit diameter (mm)
Year
J5 9 . ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ / 3 &+ > A Q !1 . : * H2% T .E+ !&+ + ?. m" 3 &+
)
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
. :.6<
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 9. Mean comparison effect of NAA on fruit average diameter of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin during seven consecutive years (T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar
application of 450 mg/l NAA).
Y2 : : * =Y1) T .E+ !&+ + ?. m" ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ : * J Q / 3 &+ > A Q .10J5 P : * =
Y3
P.* : * =
Y4
P K_ : * =
Y5
dO'R : * =
Y6
dE : * =
Y7
d 2% : * =
T1
. •)%
T2
. :.6<
4 * 3 1 2+ ! R
) * Hb6]
150
!6 • 1 P T
T3
:.6< .
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ ! R Hb6]
300
!6 • 1 P T
T4
. :.6<
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
400
!6 1 P T .(
Figure 10. Mean comparison interaction effect of year and NAA on fruit average diameter of Miyagawa Satsuma mandarin (Y1 = first year, Y2 = second year, Y3 = third year, Y4 = fourth year, Y5 = sixth year and Y6 = seventh year and T1= control, T2= foliar application of 150 mg/l NAA, T3= foliar application of 300 mg/l NAA, T4= foliar application of 450 mg/l NAA).
3 ( e ; !6( .N >
>6Y :.N %
) k 4' * - )" !%)6T .N > .L %
! ^A FU ! k + B ) H7 * )'%
)A)E %
!
! >O + )'(
^A FU ?. !A K+ ?I )+ )'+ .
! + ) H7 * ^A FU 3A > @1 .)'%
e ; I
3 ( 35 !%)6T >6Y :.N !7.'; %
?. !A K+ 4' > O' H*
>_
. 5_.( %
?. 3 H " ) H7 * H67 > >(
>_
%
H 1.
H* % )
Gardiola, 2000; Guardiola &
Garcia-Luis. 1997
.(
3 ( T !7.'; %
r @6T iFA I sR 5E %
iFA I ?. J
4' H67 > )+. e ; (>+ iFA ) `.1.AF U
?.
?. 3 H " ^% ( >O + 5_.( % -
>_
- ) %. ( % ^A FU ?. ?I )+ 8B %
!
?. >6Y 3A :.N !6( .N > .) A
>_
> %
?. iFA )' % z Y !6 $ 3 (
>_
% E
3 ( 3A e ; I ! + 36 F '* H67 >
H* %
)
Hifny et al., 2017; Gardiola, 2000
.(
4' ?. 4' HA A) / !6( .N >
?)''(
C6 k P " !% 8 ' !A %
50 55 60 65 70
T1 T2 T3 T4
c b a a
Fuit diameter (mm)
NAA application
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fruit diameter (mm)
Interaction of year and NAA treatments
!&+ + ?oA > - @(
: >6Y T .E+ %
> $ ' ! .$ > ?. ) 3A ? #7 .H* ?)E+
?. !%)6T H* ?) j R !6 $ )'AB U 4A !%
.H* I % J .7 I / H< X. D
>+.T 3 AI - , &A J5E C6 k %
>( H* 5A >+.T 4A P " 3 ! Y - @(
% > €* R ƒ Q+ )\ tA + OA VL.
C6 k
! 4' / F . . 3 ( !T)''(
%
>( !& d% 3 ( Hb6] > I ? #7 C6 k P " d% B d 6"
- 2 C6 k %
> tA + > >L. \ Y ^A IB .H*
H*
? I ?) B %
7 >1 *
T3
) 300
!6 P T
1 7 3A E ? #7 (NAA
!D O 56
3A ' .H F + !% 8 ' f$ 3A ( V* ' ? . ^A IB 3A ? 2 * . Hb6] 3A
I ? 2 * % > % .H*
8 ' f$ NAA
> )% > H@ + !%
!'D .N ^% (
% !D O 56 7 >_ T .)+
T2
T4
) )% > H@ +
T1
!'D - 2 ( . )+ E+
% > % 3 'j %
!'D ^A FU V@*NAA
n*. m" )+) )% > H@ + ?. n*. I 3A ' .)+ ^A FU )% > H@ + F + ?.
! 4 * 31 2+ I ? 2 * >( HU T >O + .
> ?. 4' ) * J 1
8 ' >$ _ JA)D
H* > =. J " ?. I ?I )+ ^A FU !%
> tA + z * 3A K \ Y M Q< I ?) B H*
Hb6] .E+ !&+ + B Hb6]
300
!6 P T
.H* 1
3 ( I !gD d Q / !7.'; %
?. 4' * - )" ^A FU - Q Q< .L %
I ^A FU 3 'j % .H* ?) i FT )D :.6< - @( C6 k P " ?. m"
! R
3 ( - Q Q< ?. 4A`.1.AF U iFA !N %
i FT ) H* ?)
Asadi Kangarshahi &
Akhlaghi Amiri, 2014; Greenberg & Kaplan,
.
2006; Greenberg et al., 1992;
.+ !&+ + . .(
) * 4 * 3 1 2+ e ; >( H* ?) i FT
?. m" >( !+ I
>_
)Y % 13
!6 )
?. )D ^% ( VL.
>_
?. m" ^A FU % %
!
?. m" >( !+ I .
>_
)Y > %
) 26
!6
?. 4' ) * ( )+ / %
)
Greenberg & Kaplan, 2006
.(
Galliani et al.
1975
$ ?. 4' >( )+ E+
!&+ +
: * ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ e ; .N > B
!'D I )D . ^% ( !% 8 ' >$ _ 3 1 . .L iFA >6Y ?. J 5E >6Y
iFA >6Y 4
- 3 JT I sR > 2%
! | 2 !%
) U
JT >6Y 3A >(
?. C D\ % .L %
JT I J= Y A 8. D ) k A > $ %
JT
? 5+ HU A !U ( ? T >( !A % iFA )+
! HEK@A n* I >( iFA P >6Y .)''(
! | 2 !1 ? 5 + ? n*
>( ) U
. H " > „. E
? : Y .L %
- ) % ) H 1. &A 8B 3 ( %
%
) H*
Davies & Albrigo, 1994
.(
:.6< tA +
! R
$ n* !&+ + $ E+ NAA
>(
+. .% %
! 56 7
$ : *
)+ ^A FU :.;< d( : * :.;< R )
Asadi
Kangarshahi, 2021; Kassas et al., 1994
.(
3 ( e ;
?. 4' V@* I 3A % %
C D\
!
^% oR tA + . T E+ C6 k %
! ) 1. Q1 ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ e ; >( )%
?. iFA >Qm' 36
>_
^A FU VL. %
?) iFA >Qm' I ' 5R IX.6* H 1 DU )% .$
?I )+ tA + >( .N > ) dAF+B H 1 DU T
I sR I ^ t'R )Y iFA >Qm' IX.6*
!&+ + ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ e ; e ; %
$ IX.6* dAF+B H 1 DU >( E+ .E+
)% $ I E )= !* H ?)
&1 n z * . H 1 DU Hb6] 3 ! A
: D dAF+B H 1 DU )= - 2 3A IX.6* dAF+B H* dAF+B Hb6] ^A FU t'R >*
)
Greenberg & Kaplan, 2006; Ortola et al.,
.(1991
i FT I >( H* ? E+ C6 k %
e ; . 3A !A ( F + ?)''( 4' .
. :.6* - @( $ !6( .N > H* / %
?. iFA >Qm'
>L ) : >6Y % ?oA >
?. ) : >6Y $ iFA I
>+ 4A`.1.AF U )
> AI H * Y (… .L
tA ) > B I sR )+ !+. .% - , dAF+B , > K+B H * Y %
I ' 5R IX.6*
! d( 36 3 'j % ) .
Ma et al., 2021;
Greenberg & Kaplan, 2006; Ortola et al., 1991
.(
E+ F + )+I 8 ] .+ !&+ + . tA +
?. H * Y H* ?
>_
)Y iFA > % 30
I I E JT P I sR 50
B I sR I
) H*
Adoli et al., 2014
?. 4' i FT .(
>_
E+ F + ) * 4 * 3 1 2+ .E+ !&+ + Hb6]
300
!6 )Y 1 P T 25
30 I
iFA )A)E / 3A E JT P I sR
?. 4'
>_
% ) H
Ortola et al., 1991
.(
3A
: * H2% % F + ^% oR :.6<
3 1 2+ ! R
$ ? $ : >% $ I ) * 4 * ) P O+ ? $
!+ I >6= U )Y >(
I 25
)Y JT P I sR I 40
JT P I sR I
!
> U A >( . . HQ m |.U ! 67 %
!
"
? tA + %
: ^A IB >1 * ^ >( E+
: * > % r :.6< %)'" Hb6]
%
>EA K+B Hb6] I E ( + B) ^A IB r :.6< %)'" Hb6] 3 'j % . .
: * >EA K+B Hb6] I E + %
: *
! E+ >( . B % : * >( )%
% ?. AI )Q .L B
P )+ ) (!U ; %
r :.6< %)'" Hb6] ^% ( VL.
! : * > * E+ . .)+.
Hb6] B %
r B . >EA Hb6] I E %
: * I E >EA > * E+ Hb6] + %
? I J= Y tA + . . r B Hb6]
% 7
E+ P ^A IB >1 *
>(
e ; 3 1 2+
Hb6] ) * 4 * 300
!6 1 P T
!% 8 ' f$ ^% ( / 3A E .H ?. 56 7 3 &+ ^A FU 3A '
8 ' JA)D HKL ^A IB 3A tA + z * :.6< & .E+ !&+ + $ !%
! R
) * 4 * 3 1 2+
Hb6]
300
!6 1 P T
!+ I >6= U I )Y
25 JT P I sR I
)Y 40
! > =. JT P I sR I 3A . .
I I I .E( : ! A.Q b+
: >% $
? $ $ ? $ ) `.1.'U b+ I
n* I I J@" ?. ) : >6Y
iFA P
?. >+ 4A`.1.AF U
>_
! % )
VL. >(
?. 4' 8 ' >$ _ JA)D C D\ 4' * %
?. I ?I )+ ^A FU !%
! . .
: ;
H H( OU )] H( P < 5 % I ^k ? &EA IB * ' ( 3 'j % * I + B W $ - Q Q<
5 % HA K+ >( )+I 8
5E )' ! Q Q< ?` R 3A !+ ) L
! !+ )"
. T
REFERENCES
1. Adoli, B., Golain, B., Ghasami, M. & Raheb, S. (2014). The effect of foliar foliar application of naphthalene acetic acid as a fruit thinner in controlling the annual Enshu mandarin. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 12, 125-133.
2. Arzani, K. & Akhlaghi Amiri, N. (2000). Size and quality of Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu) as affected by 2, 4-D and NAA. Journal of Seed and Plant, 16(4), 450-459. (In Farsi).
3. Asadi Kangarshahi, A. (2021). Calcium and Fruit Trees. (1st ed). Agricultural Extension and Education Publications. (In Farsi).
4. Asadi Kangarshahi, A. (2019). Nutritionmanagement ofcitrus trees(1th ed). Agricultural Extension and Education Publications. (In Farsi).
5. Asadi Kangarshahi, A. & Akhlaghi Amiri, N. (2021). Effect of urea spray accordance with growth phenology on yield and alternate bearing of Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu). Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science, 52(1), 99-111. (In Farsi).
