Online ISSN: 2382-9931
Journal of Water and Irrigation Management
Homepage: https://jwim.ut.ac.ir/
University of Tehran Press
Evaluation of the Effect of Supplemental Irrigation with Saline Water on Quality and Quantity of Rainfed Fig Fruit
Mohammad Abdolahipour1 | Ali Akbar Kamgar-Haghighi2 | Gholamreza Golkar3 | Hamid Reza Kamali4
1. Corresponding Author, Department of Water Engineering, College of Aburaihan, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
2. Water Engineering Department, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. E-mail:
3. Seed and Plant Certification and Registration Institute, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Zarghan, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
4. Water Engineering Department, Minab higher education center, and member of Research Group of Agro-ecology in Dry land Areas, University of Hormozgan, Minab, I.R. of Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article type:
Research Article
Article history:
Received: 09 June 2022 Received in revised form:
20 June 2022
Accepted: 10 August 2022 Published online:
25 December 2022
Keywords:
Drought, Estahban,
Rainfed fig orchard, Soil electrical conductivity, Supplemental irrigation.
The largest area of rainfed fig orchards in the world, with more than 22000 hectares, is located in Estahban, Fars province. During the last two decades due to frequent droughts and lack of fresh water resources in this area, the saline groundwater has been applied for irrigating fig trees. In the past, no comprehensive research has been done on the effects of supplemental irrigation with saline water on rainfed fig orchards. This study investigated the effects of saline irrigation water (7.38-7.8 dS/m) and high soil electrical conductivity on the quality and quantity of rainfed fig during 2010-2011. Experiments were carried out in a private rainfed fig orchard located in the village of Khane-Ket by sampling soil and roots in different parts of the garden. The results showed high tolerance of fig trees to high EC values of water and soil. However, increasing soil salinity under uniform irrigation conditions reduced the yield. Based on the results, there is a negative linear correlation between salinity and yield, with the coefficient of determination (R2) equal to 0.5. A 36 percent reduction in EC values could increase the yield by 68 percent. Also, the regression equation between EC at different depths and the amount of production was obtained. Also, by determining the EC profile in the soil, its maximum value was found at a depth of 60-90 cm. In terms of fruit quality, soil salinity did not significantly affect fruit color and size; however, it increased the total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits.
Cite this article: Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Golkar, Gh. R., & Kamali, H. R. (2022). Evaluation of the Effect of Supplemental Irrigation with Saline Water on Quality and Quantity of Rainfed Fig Fruit. Journal of Water and Irrigation Management, 12 (4), 695-711. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22059/jwim.2022.344226.1000
© The Author(s). Publisher: University of Tehran Press.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.22059/jwim.2022.344226.1000
نا هﺎﮕﺸ اد تارﺎﺸ ا
یرﺎﯿآ و بآ
Homepage: https://jwim.ut.ac.ir/
:ﯽﯿوﺮ !ﻟا #ﺎﺷ ۹۹۳۱ - ۲۳۸۲
1 2 |
3 |
4 |
1 .
! .
:#
2 .
%&!
'( ) ( *+
( *+
:# . [email protected]
3 . -
# . /*/
012 3 4!
5) . /*/
6(
'( ) 7!
8*19 : ; ( . /*/
6(
<
'( )
= ( :# .
4 . 5)
6(
? @
* 5 3
A@
#B 3 3 CD 'E ? )
F9 G H 5 3
: 1@ !
. :#
! " #
$ %
:! ' ( 3 CD I? /
)
* + ,
* -.
: 19 / 03 / 1401
)
* + / (0 1 : 30 / 03 / 1401
)
* + 2
* 3 : 19 / 05 / 1401
)
* + 45(
: 04 / 10 / 1401
$6 7 : 8
' *!
N*O
B *P Q
1 B
? H
0 3 B ? R H .
S 5!
T P
* B Q
* ! 0U !
*
% ( 22 B 3 53
B +
1 B ) B : ; (
= .
#3
#B+4
#!
0N@
? H
3 ' OB 1O) +
* T /9 ( T
B +
( + X 3 ' ( (
* ! '
!*
' O
*N BH XB + 0 . )
%3 CD 8 Y
#Z!
! . 2
!*
' O
*N ! + ! [ ! 3 ' Q P
*
\ P 0
. T
%3 CD 2]
*
!*
' ! + ) 38 / 7 - 8 / 7 ( a O ! B ( 3 0 B ? b ! ' R H !
)
*X
* 0 O)
* 0
* BH Q Q=
51 9 90 - 1389 ! ) . (
% 3 G
P
* B Q B '
# H 0) 1 B !
# O ! ' R H
# ( c O@
dNB&
R H e 9
BH f /
dNB&
[ !
\ P + . B
<
3 0 / b ! ' BH P
* 01
#!
/
b ! ' 3 0 B ? R H
! .
! T U + g
! ! ( h ?
!*
' 5;
% + ' R H
i@ !
%3 )
* 5 j + .
: !
B
<
G
#Z!
ZH X ! k l 1
**
T )
R2 (
! ! !
5 / 0 !
* T / + ' j Y .
%3 ) 36 n ' / R HEC
0 /
j 68 n 5;
% 3 . Q3 o
* T
#? 8
* !
* T 3 0 B ? c O@
dNB&
* 5 j 8
**
T + ! 8
**
T
* p O 3 0 B ? R H !
*
% T / T
B D FO@
60 90 B B 8
**
T + . ( q )
*X
* 0 j / dNB&
+ ' R H
2]
* 8 ' ! r (
* 0+
i@ ! 5;
% Y N
* )
TSS ( + .
, 95:
: N? 1@
D .\
) /U
*/
. .s N . .[
? O) .t ) 1401 .(
(
! 2]
*
!*
' O
*N ! + ! )
*X
* 0 O)
* 0 P
* Q .
' *! 0 # 12
) 4 ( 695 - 711 . DOI:http://doi.org/10.22059/jwim.2022.344226.1000
: + . B # - .
. ©
1 . !"#!
0H P
* (
BH B ! 0
) 0+
( U 4000 D
*
% (
* u j
\ ! 0 .
!
Y T )
#
# 3 ' dNB&
T 0H Y 0 ( 3 )
! ) 0+
P
* D
*
% ( =
Q3 o
* u '
#!
0
* 0 . B : ; (
F9 Q ) 0 6 D P
* Q )
! v? !
! 85 n t Z ( ) 0 P
* Q ) T
B )
#B+
+ !
! ' =
* .
#/Z
1 B
%*!
T 0U [ ! ' 3
*P B : ; 0
)
Abdolahipour et al., 2019a
( 0+ ) 0 = .
#/Z j T U
250 0
.
T
B +
!
#Y
#!
Q
! . w ! 5*
*?
*P
#!
. + 0
*2]
5*
! 0
3
#)
' ! Q) ! 5*
*?
j 01
#!
' 3 D !
#!
. +
%3 )
#B;
) 0
Abdolahipour et al.,
.(2018
#!
x 9 1389
#!
1 B '5) 0+ Q *P j / ? H 0N@
80 n
0; %3 ) 10
) 0; T*! ( 5* #/Z BH ( n
Abdolahipour et al., 2019b
.(
#/Z #NOY ( B + T dNB& F9 *P 0+ )
# H )
#/Z T . + \ P 0
. P
#o
B&!
! ) x [ ! ' 3 *P
# . @ X =
#!
' 9
#) #) Hy
* ( ' 0! 9 z B1
b ! ' ! T [ ! 3 Q3 ; 0 .
%3 CD ' 3
* 3
)
#
#B+4 BU ' 3
z B1 H G
T U
*
# [ !
*P ' 3 Q
j 1
#B+
NO@
3 !
*
% G ( T 3 B ! 0 .
! T U
aD ( ( w ' 3
? H
b 9 ( 1380 XB
(
!*
' O
*N . w ! Q T
#/Z ! XU
o 3 ' Z
*
#O O@
* F . P {H
. w ! 5
#o B&!
( w + . T i@ ! +
#)
w !
#!
Y ' {OU ! 0 Y
!*
' O
*N . w !
#!
#!
*
#N
#? ? 3 ' ND
* TN o 3 ' XU +
. w ! {/B 01
#!
' *!
3
\ = ) O
Shrifzadeh et al., 2012
( . ' *!
N*O 3
'
H G u@
!
|XU '
BH 0
%/
O 5;
% NO@
*) X*
0 j
#B+
+ ! .
0+ !
* ( ( ! XB ( o ' 3 Z g
w !
#/Z
#!
<
( 1380 B
+
lY TB; b !
#Y ' +
? j B + . Q3 T* o ' *!
' 3 OB BH Q
*P
#/Z lY +
#)
BH A8!
( [ ! 3 U ' (
#!
0? U
!
**}
)
: !
. 3
*
\ @ ' *!
A8!
( T [ ! 3
#!
. G ? i@ !
* H { )
BH + . Y
#~3 * ' 3 GO 0 [ ! 3 3
0*8k ' + 'b ! R H
T
#/Z 0 . { @ #o Z*
#NOY ( D B;
0! 9 3 ! '
#8 + 0H
*P j
2- 0 )
Flaishman et al., 2007
#! #) ' + ( N GO . n
d 8 R H (
#! BH j ! 4 *2] X ' 3 B) ; ( + G H F9 C
#O*
) 0 G H
Ashraf et al., 2004; Hussain et al., 2009
' + .(
#@ 5 R H ' *!
Y
#! + ! #B+
0 t Z 3 S ! 65 0H + ) B ( *w Nn { @ ( @
)
Soni et al., 2017
.(
%*!
%3 CD ' 3
\ P ( g B R H s 1+ j@ ' + #! *P 0H {O # B +
) 5 / 5 ?
%+
a O ( ! ( B 6 5 ) 0 +
Golombek and Lüdders,1990; Grieve et al., 2012;
Dominguez, 1990
U T ! .(
3 *
#!
' +
# T*!
# ' 3 dNB&
zu )
*}B 0
# N!
3
*
0 g + Z*
5*
**}
) . ' * ! ( { @ f !
#!
* R H X O
! F*XN
+ !
0 / G
* 01
#!
' +
*2]
4 . T ! !
% ) G
* 01
#!
0qNw
*8 ( GO O
#!
9 FNZ
%*D
*!
O . NO@
1
* R H + 01
#!
NO@
O3
* R H + *w
#!
@ ' O 3 NO@
&B s
* 0 Y 0 )
%*D
*!
% ' + XB
=
* . . 8? Z
B ' !
% ) 3 *
#!
' + . n
#B;
0 B!
#Z!
' + - NO@
O) ) O
Kamali
et al., 2022
( .
: !
. @u9 3 G ( T 7!
' + - NO@
#) /
*?
* 01
#!
' + ' ! )
3
#!
0 . T* o 8!
. 8? Z . *NO@
B Y
#) ' + G
{ 8*19 + !
*X 0 . 3 * dNB&
: !
# B {O
#!
' + 3
Q3 T* o /
%3 ) NO@
#!
' (
% 5;
G U ' +
#/19 ' ! + . T**8 7!
*?
j 01
#!
' + zb O8 ( *
#!
8
' (
* .
%3 CD ) .0 \ P *P BH ' ! + ( XB ' ( ' 3
Golombek and
Lüdders
) (1993
# &N g*
' + *2] ' )
G*Y ! Q= *P 5B B; '( 1 ! . 1
) ! #*) e j ) / ' + O* ( XB ( aD ' 3( T*B & #) < B .
3 *
#!
0N@
# ( 0 3 %3 ) .0 #B; % 5; '
3 + #! *P * 0 / g B #Y '
. ) 6 5
#!
9 ! ' + #! 0 / #Y N)
: !
\ P . 8? Z 5* BH + ( +
j / 3
b 9 ' + g + 0 .
GO 7OP ( aD 0 T O BH #) o + T**8
0; !
#! 3 . 2 9 X
) + 3 • O ' 3
Boland et al., 1996
* ! ' + 2 T**8 .(
# ! . + ! 2- ' *! \ P *+ 5* '5
Salimpour et al.
(2019)
0X3 ! ' + 2 ! !
\ / 51 * ' 3 Q= *P 0H dNB& Q=
Q= T ) ) ; 8 3
l #
C T 3 * ' 3
%3 CD . ' + {! /
\ P ' 3 +
3 < B ( s C
' 3 (
! ! *P BH ) 0 ' +
Madahinasab et al., 2019; Caruso et al., 2019; Francini et al., 2021;
Qrunfleh et al., 2013; Metwali et al., 2014; Alswalme et al., 2015; Zarei et al., 2017; Soliman
.
and AbdAlhady, 2017
.(
#!
%3 CD 5Y ' 3
. n
#B;
' ! ' 3
*P g* !
# &N
%3 CD 8 Y f 1 !
! )
+ ' ! ' *!
BH T
#!
C ' *!
N*O BH
*P Q
* \ P 0
. T ! ! T
%3 CD . 2
! ' * ( + [ ! ' 3 Q
*P
#/Z ' B
# H 0) 1 B ! ' 0*X*) 0*O)
j T BH ! +
. Q3 T* o . **}
/
EC
pH
c O@
dNB&
R H
# / 3 H +
D ) ' 3
%3 ) . 2 X ! BH 0*8k
0 ( Z*
#/Z
#€
+ .
2 .
% !
&
T
%3 CD G
B *P Q
' B
# H 0)
B +
1 B ! 0U U
# B 3 ! 9
• @
*; }Y
#!
l*
29
#Y 27
#/*=
? O+
53
#Y 36
#/*=
= + ! s X 1648 B (
‚Z
\ P 0;
8 BH
*P Q Y [ ! 280 0H 30
#?
+ ! . BH ( Q=
(#/Z l? w Q= ) 51
! Z=
g B
# ( 6 / 3 B
#!
#Nn ; 10
× 10 B
#) zu ) /B + !
&B + . 0*8=
*; }Y {
' Y t 9 {
' * = BH
% ( { +
) 1 ( +
0 . \ ? ( [ ! R H 0; !
: 0N* T+ / ! ?
#!
l*
35 46 19 ( n . + ' *
( ' * ' 3
%3 CD
90 - 89
#/Z
\ P {= U . + x) U
' 1 B #/Z 3 T*!
7 - 41
#Y B . + !
/ !
# b U 354 N*
B ! Q) / T 92
%*!
/ T 739 N*
B 0 ! )
Bagheri
and Sepaskhah, 2014
.(
g B 0! 9 1
3 45 n ! (
* j
B ! {j;
%3 )
! . Q3 T* o ' F9 O3
# B ' 3 '
%*!
/ 6 !
#! f ! H
{j;
5* D 5*
B ( 0
. . @u9 + 3
f !
#!
(
#8? Z T (
' 3 012 + B
+ 3 G*BD * 1 B
#!
. n ) { + dNB& / ' ! # 3 # ( g B 2
.0 + #€ (
*P
Q Q=
51 3 * ! + ' O@
p + S ! Q) B zb O8
# ? o
# + ! l? w BH
*P
#/Z
1 B ( T Q=
+ ! .
Figure 1. Location of experiments in Khane-Ket, Estahban, Fars province (fig orchards are shown in green near the Lake Bakhtegan)
Figure 2. Different agrometeorological data of Estahban synoptic station during the experiments (2010-2011)
#*N) . *NO@
0+
F! Z 6 B
#/Z
\ P + : 3 BH '
\ P 0;
. ' ! 0
N*O ' *! l [ !
' 3
#Y Q
#!
{U dNB&
( 0H
*P ' k 0
. + {U
) { + 1 B #/Z *P BH 3
.0 + #€ ( ' *!
( F 9 o
Z Y [ !
#8? Z
*Hy T* ] + . ' *!
3
%+
0!
„ ' 3
%+
! ) 5H aD ( 0+ ! j
{1=
(
< D ' ) H B ( 0H
( 10 T ; )
0) U
*+
3 * 0H
' *!
0H (
0X3 0 1
< D H ) {1=
(
; ( 25 H ) ' B + ( {1=
( 0+ ! j
(
\ P + / ' *!
3 0H T*!
2500 5000 B*?
3 0!
! . 0N@
\ P ' *!
' 3 Q)
#/Z
{j;
5* D B (
#!
9 H Y 6 ! ' 3 T j;
0 .
! T U ' *!
!
#!
0N@
\ @ 6 !
' 3
%*D ( g w !
\ P 0;
. ' *!
#!
. n 6 B ! .
( ' *!
3 0H 15
#/*=
!
! 0! 2 ! .
Figure 3. The growth stages of fig trees in Estahban region (Abdolahipour et al., 2019c)
/
EC
3 pH
0!
' *!
' ! O BH !
. 0*X*) 0!
B!
' B
' *!
# O ' ! + ' B!
' *!
! 5*
! ! EC
! 38 / 7 a O ( ! B
( ' * +
#) ! 0+4 (
#!
5*
5; EC
T H ' *!
H
#!
8 / 7 a O ( ! B
* .
/ T*! . X
#! EC
#! #) + ! B ! 6 ! 1O) ( + * ( ( X # 4} \ @ {*?
#; k GO %3 ) * ( ( X #! +
/ . P 5* pH
T*?
' *!
! ! 52 / 7 T H ' *!
#!
82 / 6 #) *
#!
. + ! TB; = 3 • 8 ( aD #Nn ;u! o . ! ) 9 H
#!
q
# O ' ! ( 5*
' +
#*U R H
# [ ! q
8
< D
@ {*; D f /
dNB&
#!
FO@
200 B B P + . { 1 / {*; D 3 o Y [ ! { + ' 3 ) 4 ( ) 5 ( +
.
{*; D
#Nn ; 3 U) + #B; q e 9 0H # 3 # ( ! ! '
# ? #) 0+ #Y ! .( B
# *P 0H
#! 3 BH ( /; #8 0N@
6 B P [ ! ‚Z {) 4Y 0*N! = !
) Y
Abdolahipour et al., 2020
.(
( ' * 5*
' + R H {n ;
/O@
30 B ' B R H !
# O ' * ( {*; D {1=
( 0+ ! ) j
20 H 1390 (
\ P + . + 0+ ! # O # R H FO@ 3 (
# O 0) D 3
*B uD ' 3 ' + #B&
6 - #Y B T**8 ' ! C
' 3 R H # O X*)
. + ' (
D {j;
+ j 7OY ' + (
# 0H G 5 T {*; D ) 3
A B C
D
( E
Q3 T* o j N) [ ! ( ' * {*; D T ( G 3 ' + %3 CD T . + O* G 3
3
+ #B; q G 5* {*; D ( # O 3 0H .
!
#Y
#!
0H ! BH !
# / 5*
' +
# O 3 j {n U NO@
BH g +
' + ! + . aD ( 7OY '
* 3 ! XB (
B
'( Y
5) 2
. /*/
*P 1 B
'( Y
3 ' ! 3 0H
#!
#
#B { + Z=
Go ) (
17 N*
B ) #Y (B
T*!
17 22 N*
B )
#Y
A
S 5! (
( 22 N*
B )
#Y (AA
\ P + (
* ' 3 3
#B ( ' * + . Q3 T* o ! XB ( aN9 r )
Hickethierd, 1974
(
* ' 3 BH
#!
#
( = ' T+
= '
* Q* / ' ! +
#) r ' 3 T+
3 0*X*) b ! 0 . (
* ' 3 ' 3
dNB&
' ! 3 0H T**8 + . Q3 T* o ' ! 3 0H
#
*
#!
9
; j
&B +
5*
Y N 3
! XB ( B B B) ; '
20
#Y B (
' * + . g B
/ Y
N
* ' 3 3 0H {*N
' XB
= 0;
. {*N ' 3 0+ ! +
! XB (
\ 5;
SPSS v.16.0
\ P + . euBH T* * 3 ! 6
% (
# o
T
‚Z OBU
< D
n
# / + .
Figure 5. Location of soil profiles (red circles) and the well (green circle) in the experimental
orchard depicted in a schematic diagram
Figure 4. Soil and root sampling of profiles
near the trees
3 . () * +
5*
j ( ' * e 9 BH ' ! # b + {*; D ( G 3
' 3
A
) Y E
1
(
0 + .
< B NO@ 3
g + *P BH l .0 R H 'b ! EC
Golombek and
Lüdders
) (1990
' + #! \ / z 1 / BH *P ; 8 R H
) Q3 . T Y ! T* o #)
Maas
) (1986
%*!
/ T )y B ! a O ( 3 * x) ' ! ' *! EC
' %3 CD )
Grieve et al.
) (2012
.0 = ' + #! g B 0 / ! 3 * *P 0H
Dominguez
) (1990
*P 0H {O # B / ' + #!
! ! s 1+ j@
5 / 5 %+
) 6 5 B ! a O (
.0
Table 1. Mean fruit weight (kg/tree) based on annual total yield of trees for each treatment (A, B, C, D and E are the label of profiles and the index numbers are the label of replications)
E3 E2 E1 D3 D2 D1 C3 C2 C1 B3 B2 B1 A3 A2 A1 Trees
15.0 13.5 15.5 22.5 21.5 26.0 19.6 24.1 17.2 12.4 16.3 12.4 13.7 19.3 12.2 yield (kg/tree)
/ TB; q ! ZH * ( XB ! ( g B {*; D 3 #! f ! R H p O* EC
5*
( j ' *
+ BH ) T**1 l k / e 9
R2
! ! B D T T*! ( 50
/ 0 . + #1
) { + #) {n U #? 8 6
( 0 + #€
\ N*) l U ! j / Y
B ? 0 3 g B / X
s 1+ j@
{*; D R H dNB& c O@ EC
' 3
A
l U !E
B ! a O ( . + !
Figure 6. Correlation between the production of trees and EC values of soil for different treatments
!
#Y
#!
T #) c O@
/ dNB&
( EC
' * + 0 ZH • ; TB; q ! / !
#! 01 * j ) ' +
Maas and Hoffman, 1977
#! ( T**8 q 2
' + c O@
dNB&
! T* *
j BH # b
#9 !
* #? 8 ' *
ZH # o !
XB (
\ 5;
#! SPSS
. n (
#!
0 :
#Z!
1 (
1.24 0.04 1.95 0.26 41.35
T
#? 8 5* Y
j 0
#) l U !
\ N*) *!
. + Q3 T* o
EC0-30
EC30-60
EC120-150
EC180-200
#!
5* l*
ECe
l U ! a O (
! B c O@
30 - 0 60 - 30 150 - 120 200 - 180 B B
h ? \ @ {*? .0 R H ‚Z (
/ )
ECe
c O@ #! f ! 90
- 60 180 - 150 B c ; #? 8 ' B
8
#! f ! l k 1 3
! * #? 8 .0
Q3 T* o Q3 !
# o ! ZH
{O l k #) c ; * #? 8 3
#! f ! 4 ECe
FO@
150 - 120 200 - 180 Q) ( 4 / 0 ! \ 3 #) 0 ' B D {O l k .0 !
%*!
(
# o * G *}B XB
= * ' 3 *}B ! #) *! %*D ' 3 *}B GO) !
b ! * ! B 1O3 {/B …&
) +
Meyers et al., 2016
B D T # .(
! G Xn (
( ' 3 Q) ( 4 / 0 0 )
%*D ' 3 *}B ! #9 ! *}B T*! #) 3 ' = g! T*!
o Y / T #o
Q) ( 1 / 0 ! l*) B D e4U #! ( * + ! 3 B D
) + !
Meyers
et al., 2016
+ )y #! #Y ! T ! ! .(
/ T*! ( #) 0; #P*B
ECe
/ dNB& c O@
FO@
30 - 0 60 - 30 B c O@ #! 01 B
*2]
# O .0 4 O o ! # ( ' !
N* 4w ) ' ! dNB& ? o ' B
%*!
Xn c O@ # ? 9 ? o ! 60
B B ' ! '
%*!
{*; D ) * ] 3 )
{ + 7 ( . Q3 T* o F! Z
%3 CD ' 3
Abdolahipour et al.
) (2020
. w ! ' !
%*! 1 B Q T
Q) QPU
#
*P BH ' 3 Z FO@
60 B B Y
#!
9 ' #)
! H B ( H
%*!
FO@ # ? 9 Q) T 15
- 45 B B B ! FO@
30 60
B ' B R H T ! ! . + 6 5
#! *}B o ZH #Z!
0 #Z! ) 3 /Z (
#!
q o
#)
' + 4Y
T Z FO@
2 T**8 ) ' ! 5*
j
#B+
0 . B ' <
l k
#? 8 c ;
‚Z G n 8 0 . T !
#o † s k 0*O3 TB; q ! U '(
: !
# FO@ {)
#€ * #? 8 0X 5
) { + + 6
#Z! ) # o * #? 8 #! 01 ( 1
#) (
q c O@ A8!
l *
.0
)Maas
( 1986
! ) #) ) 6 5 +
{U dNB&
+
# 51 {U { + '
* 3
*
* 0 . XB zb O8
3 * 9
#NU
#*?
+ * ! : U B 3
#NU
* 0 /
%*!
' (
H T ! ! . 3
' *! {n ; *P BH ! R H ' + . 2 %3 ) ' ! ' 3
Y #! s + 3 * *+ #) T ; X %3 ) )
*2]
'5O D ( + 4Y %3 ) X
. + Q) Q3
T* o < B
%3 CD
*! #) 0 #/Z T {1= ' 3 T '
%*! 3 ! *2] T
C ) *P BH E ? ; ' 3
Abdolahipour et al., 2018; Abdolahipour et al., 2019a;
Abdolahipour et al., 2019b
@ .(
+ ! l 0 ! 5* ( T e j / ! U T*
! ! ; ( . + #B ) * ( ( 7
Figure 7. Samples of fig roots in different soil depths for various experimental profiles
3 . 1 . , #!
EC - . / pH
- . / & 0 1 2 +3 4 5)! "#! &
TB; q !
# O ( G 3
#! 3 / ' {*N G @ {*; D #! f ! EC
#!B
8 9 '
%*!
' 3 O* (
C D
Q) 0 E
/ T O* #! f ! EC
) Y < B . + ! D
2 ( . +
Q3
! T* o
#Y
#!
< B T* * e 9 BH j
D {*;
' 3 dNB&
T* * j
BH {*; D
D
#! C
9 8 '
%*!
( {*; D 0 3 . BH {*; D Q) B
T 5*
j B 3 .
#!
9 N)
Y T < B : T ! .0 ' + #! *P BH 'b ! 0 / 3
B ? 0 3 R H
) T* * FO@
200 B B (
! ! ! 5 / 27 a O ( ! B G
*P 0H 7
/ 13
\ N*) j
*?
)
#)
%*!
( g B j
BH
#/Z 1 B 0? U Q ! ' *!
) 10 0 (\ N*) .
%3 )
/ U #! R HEC
6 / 17 ! a O ( j / B
68 n . % 5;
Q3 T* o
#! #Y ! < B
0! o ' *! ( XB . n 0X 5*
0 / 0H
*P
#!
.0 b ! * ! R HEC
o ( G #/Z T ? j B #) P (
#! #?
0 + + <
#! 4?
q
{ @ (
*2]
Q)
#! ' + b 9 ' + ! *P BH ' ( 9 H #Y ! e 9 ( . + ! .
#!
T #) U BH #Nn ; 10
% ) D + ! B
# 3 4Y 0 ) *D # P BH 5*
f / ( ' + 2 %3 ) 5* (0H * ! ) ' *! { ( ‡ H
*2]
T ! .0 ! 4 G ' ! U
#P*B
% ) ! F*= ' * 0 ( 2 * ' 3
.0 ' k b 9 G Z*
) [ ! {) ' ! j 5* # / 280
\ P 0H 3 (0H
%3 CD ) 1390 ! ( {1= ' 3
#! .0 *? ? 5 3 ' 9
[ ! j / #) ' 3
1387 1388 1389 1390
#!
l*
2 / 10 3 / 6 5 / 6 3 / 4
#! 0H 3 j T* * T l*
5 / 42 5 / 22 2 / 23 4 / 15 N*) ! .0 ! \
o 9 : T j /
U 58 ' 8B { b .0 #B+ %3 ) n T ' !
#NOY ( ) t Z s k T
#) #/Z ' *! 0*X*) N + ) w ! . • #! #Y ! 10
) % ( \ P ( {1=
1380 0 ! T *+ l (
#!
0*X*) ( <
# U ( + #B )
) ( %*D 1387
#! ' + ( .0 #B; % 5; . +
Q3 T* o ( * ( ( ( XB '
#! * ( ( Hy ! B ‚Z + %3 ) #! P *P BH ' *! ' ! ' #) /9 T* o C
0 '( ) 0 ) 0 +
Abdolahipour and Kamgar-Haghighi, 2015
.(
0H
*P 3 * 0
#) ! R H ' 3
*N=
' (
%*!
' . l pH
' ! BH
*P T*!
%+
0 3 ) + !
Flaishman et al., 2007
.(
% ( ' 3
\ P + c O@ pH
dNB&
T*!
7 5 / 7 + !
#)
' / l
Y) + ! 2
(.
/ T*!pH
7 44 / 7 T*!
{*; D ' 3 dNB&
**}
) 0 . {*; D
C
%*!D
T / pH
B 3 .
! T U . X 8 ' T*!
{*; D T 3
Y < B
3
R H #)
*N= ' 3 j 5*
%*!
.0 + {n U ' Q3
/ # / ! T* o
#! pH
0
R H ' *! pH
/ R H #! ' *! ! #) 0X .0 + { 8 R H g pH
Table 2. Mean comparison of soil EC (dS/m), yield (kg/tree) and soil pH for trees around different treatments
pH Yield (kg/tree)
EC (dS/m) No.
Treatment
7.30 a 15.07 b
23.15 ab*
3 A
7.29 a 13.70 b
27.55 a 3
B
7.40 a 20.30 a
20.57 b 3
C
7.44 a 23.33 a
17.60 b 3
D
7.39 a 14.67 b
19.31 b 3
E
* Means followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan multiple range test (P<0.05).
#) < B
%*! c O@
5* R H
%*! R H EC
FO@ 0 60
90 B
#! B 9
8
%*! ' / T
{*; D T*! EC
Y) 0 Y ' 3 3
Q3 .(
#! ' + 5* T* o # b ( 5Y
#! ( aD 5; R H \ / ( ) <
0*1x / #B ) EC
7OP 0N@ . +
FO@ GO 60
90 B B
# b ( ! Q3 Z ' 3
o R H # b #! R H 0; ! **} T*
FO@ T*
90 100 B / . **} .0 B ) { + R H p O* EC
8
.0 + (
Q3
%*! ' R H Z # b #) ' < B T* o 5* T
Y) 0 pH
3 / . **} .(
pH
) { + R H p O*
9 ( .0 + #€
Table 3. Mean comparison of soil EC (dS/m) and pH values for different soil depths
pH EC (dS/M)
No.
Soil depth (cm)
7.63 a 13.84 c*
5 0-30
7.46 b 18.37 bc
5 30-60
7.30 c 26.18 a
5 60-90
7.25 c 25.46 a
5 90-120
7.31 c 23.65 ab
5 120-150
7.30 c 22.15 ab
5 150-180
7.31 c 21.81 ab
5 180-200
* Means followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan multiple range test (P<0.05).
Figure 8. Variation in mean EC values for different depths of soil profiles
Figure 9. Variation in mean pH values for different depths of soil profiles
3 . 2 . 6 !
#!
9 G H *P * 0*X*) 5* N)
: !
N Y / 0 D r Z= ( ' 3 B D
T**8 ( ' * #o 3 : T ! . + S 5!
T+ r N Y /
%*!
( + ! '
6( ! ' P q + !
İrget et al.
) (2008
* ( *P
Q B) ; T
#! ! ( ! C
( Q*/B e j ! #Z!
*! ' H . )
: !
#€ < B ) Y + 4
{*; D #! f ! j (
#! D
9 * ( # 3 ' ! N)
{*; D BH ! # / ( 3
%*!
T*! Z= ' ! . B+ ' 17
22
*N #! f ! BH T*! X B
{*; D O dNB& ' 3 . +
Q3 ' 3 O* BH T* o
A
/ #)B
b ! EC
Q)pH
/ '
Q) j
* ' ! Q3 ' S 5! Z= ! ' 3
( 22 N*
Q) Q3 B (
17 N*
: T ! . B+ B
O #) 0X
%*!EC
( ! ' *2] R H
* Z=
#! #) o 0 #B+ 3 ' 3 Z= ' ! ! 9
T ! .0 ! 4 2 dNB&
U ( G 3 j ( 01 TB; q !
/ {) #! 3
F*= < B {*; D BH j
#! '
! . 0 ) { + q T '
10 01 #! #Y ! ( ' 3
#1 / * ! r #) + Q* + Q)
/ ( r S 5!
#! #Y ! . 3
#! < B 0
#!
9 dNB& ' 3 O* ' ! N)
%*!
* n T ( B o ) Z= #! f ! 3
17 N*
B
' 3 Z= 0 17
- 22 N*
B
%*!
( 22 N*
. = ( aD B
%*!
* n T 0*X*) ! ' 3
( %*! Z=) l 22
N*
* {) ( ( B BH #! f ! 0H G ' 3
O*
a† E
< B T .0 A
! \ @
*2]
* Z= ! R H ' + ' 4 3
. 3
.0 r * 0*X*) T**8 Q ' 3 B D (
: !
3 ' 3
%3 CD #*N) ' ! k U
* 3 O*
l 0*X*) 0+ ! ' 3 0+ ! #) B+ '
8! ' 3
#!
O@ 9
* r '
= '
T* D X*) #Y ' +
.
#!
9 8 . X N) {*; D T*! '
* r q ( dNB& ' 3
Y) 5 ) { + < B #! #Y ! .(
10 BH O ' ! ( Q)
/ T
* r #! f ! j 0 (
( ! #) 17
23 .0 0H * ( {) ( n
%*!
* n T ' 3
O* BH ' ! 0H G (
E
? U . + ! O* BH ' ! #)
* n C
= r ' 3
= ( %*! * ' 0 T+ '
) 3 O*
A B D
(E
= r / T+ '
%*!
. '
: !
#! < B 0
#P*B ) ' *
/ #) 8 2 R H ' + dNB&
.0 #B+ * r ! '
Q3 T* o B D
#! 5* N Y
…H + ( @
( * X*) ' 3 ) + ' *
Crisosto et al.,
{*; D BH / #) (2010
#!B
8 9 ' 3 O* ( %*! '
C D
Y) !E
5 Q3 .(
o aD T*
O* (
%*! B
T / ' O* #! f ! B D
: T ! . !A
/ % 5; #) 0X i@ ! EC
/ + ( .0 *P * ' ! X*) q ( *X ' 3 B D ( #) 0 + * N Y
Francini et al.
) ( 2021
*P BH ' ! g B ' + ! ) #) 7OP i@ !
' ' 3
+ * Q 5*
. ) GO) '4} q ( X*) 1 ! #!
Y !
*2]
#! ( * % ( T BH * ( r 0*X*) ! ' + R
%3 CD ' 3 b 9 '
.0
Boland et al.
) (1996
) 6 5 0; ! GO 7OP * BH #)
T o ' ! ! o ' 3
X . 2 a† 3 p < B . + 3 • O ' 3
% ( ' 3 BH ' ! '
% ( b 9 ( 0+4 ! N3 ? ( 0; ! T g GO 6
o ' 3 #B; D 0; ! *Hy 0*; • !
! 0@ #! ; k Q S
3 + 0 T*! ( 0H
.
* 0*X*) ! 2- { @ ( Z* g + R H s #!
: 3 '( ) . *NO@ 3
; ) ) +
Crisosto et al., 2010; Aksoy et al., 2001; Inglese et al., 2002; Ochoa &
Uhart, 2006; Pourghayoumi et al., 2012
.(
S ! 65 #) ! % ( [ ! p ( 5* 3
H + ! + ( XB #P*B
#/Z . w ! ( ' * ! % ( BH ! u@ #) o
%3 CD 5*
T .0 p % ( \ P
* 0*X*) %3 ) { @ ( . + ! BH ' 3
Table 4. Mean comparison of annual yield (kg/tree) based on classification of fruits’ diameter for different treatments
Diameter of fruit (mm) No.
Treatment
22<
17-22
<17
3.63 c 5.34 a
6.09 b*
3 A
3.36 c 4.04 a
6.30 b 3
B
4.87 ab 7.98 a
7.45 b 3
C
5.37 a 7.96 a
10.01 a 3
D
3.81 bc 4.65 a
6.21 b 3
E
* Means followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan multiple range test (P<0.05).
Table 5. Mean comparison of annual yield (kg/tree) based on classification of fruits’ skin color and TSS (Brix) for different treatments
TSS (Brix) Color of fruit skin
No.
Treatment
Dark brown Light brown
Yellow
32.60 ab 4.97 a
7.20 b 2.89 ab*
3 A
34.73 a 3.15 a
7.81 ab 2.74 b
3 B
31.63 b 8.65 a
7.80 ab 3.85 ab
3 C
30.20 b 7.52 a
11.85 a 3.97 a
3 D
30.80 b 4.02 a
7.28 b 3.37 ab
3 E
* Means followed by the same letter are not statistically different according to Duncan multiple range test (P<0.05).
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. The ratio of a group’s weight to total yield of trees for different treatments based on classification of diameter (a) and color (b) of fruits
3 . 3 . 6 - 7! -8 &
9 &
#:;!
#! ! #) Q { @ ( 6 TB; )
{U #! #Y + #B; q ' + % . 2 %3 ) ' 3
#/Z Z + ' ! .0 *P 0H + dNB&
%3 CD
#H + + T ; H ( 3
H g
c X S ! Z* g + #! #B ! . B;
#! 3 H g <
{ )
* 3 N . + ( 3
T ;
*
* * p ( 3
s + # ! %3 ) 3 ' #)
. !
S ! 65 + H ( w 3
0U B 0H + + : U {U % . +
. 2
%*!
. + ! #B+ * 0*X*) 0*O) * + ! '
BH NO@ + ! ' + N) . 2 ( N tu {) 2 ( + '5O {* BD %3 ) #!
.('5O 2 ) ) + R H Y Q3
T* o Y ! Q N) R H ˆ H ' 3
#!
4Y Q * + * 0*O P i@ ! \ @ i@ ! ( C 2 ) O P uBH *
# 4} 8 ' + ( + .u {U ' ! 4? . + 0H '
[ !
*P ' 3 #/Z
) ( ? OBU ' 3
* = ! .
{U b 9 Nn .
R H ' ! + ' 3
'( ! ( 3
! F 9
#! .0 N) 9 0
e 3 T #! !
( ' * !
# 1+ ‰ U \5NB ( ' 3
0 )
o 3( # 1+ #! ( * #/Z G1 R H #! #Y !
#! 0 * ' k q
*! 6 ( k U U . O XB R H ' + %3 ) ' ! ! ( B!
B '
XB 0) # H #/Z BH ' *! ' ! . +
0X ' *! 6 T
#!
%*! e j 0N@
Š5Y
#) o 0 + #B; q ! ' *! 6 T
\ O 0H ( ‚Z + D (
+ GO 0 = ' 3
7OY {1= ' *! ( {n U + 0 +
+ {/B R H c O@ #!
O #*n . GO +
O*= ! ' 3 {n U
) g 0! T o ' *! ( 7OY
' + . + ( Q3
T* o ! 6 ! \ 3 u* (
' 3
0 + 0 Y #Nn U R H GO ' +
XB O ' ! . q T T* ( l*+ TB; q ! ‚* n 0 ! !
. ) Q3 ; R H u* ! y X R H % ;
BH * ! 0O = R H ‹ 8 ( XB . 2 %3 ) * # #*U GO 7OP %3 ) i@ !
b 9 X ( ' * ! k U U . + .
[ ! 3 ‹ 8 0H # G 5 R H 3 . +
{ @ ( 2-
#Nn ; # #*U e 9 GO 7OP BH 0+ ) ) #Nn ; .0 3 * ! 0U BH
U #/Z 10
× 10
#! 0 B q
#!
B 3 1 ( 5* 3 * ! BH #Nn ; ! ( 0N@
' 3 * ! .0 ) GO) BH # e 9 GO 7OP %3 ) #! T S 5!
Q3 T* o #!
T BH #
( Y #Nn ; #) 3
%*!
. O 4Y ! ) y X '
Q3 T* o !
\ P
& #! Q&+
#? ? l 3 ' ) D*
u ' ) O G
&1 B; %! 2 ! O
* H ( R
#!
C O B ! {j;
G Z R H ( Q&+ \ 3 .
#N BH e 9 + !
+ B!
3 '
#Nn U ' H ‚Z R 7OY '
Q&+ #! \ = a† O . ) (
( XB ! #Z!
+ ) fuBH 3 3
! 3 ' !
*) X*
0 l +) ' ) (Q O3
0 ! t Z T *?
zb O8 3 Y )
# + ' {
0 (
! 7!
l 0*X*) ! R
0
f N&
) . Y 4?
o
* + T Z ! ' B NO@ #!
. *n jH 0H + ! u@ l
.0 ' k ' + #! % ) 0H B; ( l % R H
4 . +
=
T
%3 CD 2 ' + R H
#/Z
# H 0) ! 5*
j ' *?
*P Q 0*X*)
! ( + . ' + R H
[ ! ' 3 Q T
#/Z + ( XB ( + o ' 3 Z ' ! ' *!
N*O BH
*P 0 .
< B
#) BH BU !
! ! EC
! 8 / 7 a O ( ! B =
#!
*?
j z 1 / 1
B 3 . Q3 T* o
EC
R H ) T* * FO@
200 B B (
! ! ! 5 / 27 a O ( ! B G 0H 7
/ 13
\ N*) j
*?
)
#)
%*!
( g B j
BH
#/Z 1 B 0? U
Q ! ' *!
0 . T
#N 3
*2]
'b ! ' *!
8B ! QPU ( 0
#) . 2
X ' +
%3 ) 3 .
! T U g + (
h ?
/ ' *!
% 5;
' + R H i@ !
%3 ) 5*
j +
< B .
#) G
#Z!
ZH X ! l k
T**8
! ! ! 5 / 0 T*!
' + j
Y . Q3 T* o
#? 8
*
*2]
' + c O@
dNB&
! 5*
j T**8 + .
< B
#) FO@
60 90 B B 5*
R HEC
%*!
( c O@
0 .
< B
#) / dNB&
' + R H
*2]
8 ' !
%3 ) 0*X*)
* ( q r 0 D (
#B+
0 . Q3 T* o
' + i@ !
% 5;
/ Y N
* + 0
#)
#!
' D ( ! GO)
) .
% ( \ P 3
' 3
#? o F*= < B #!
# ! #P*B 0H T ! ' + . 2 ( '5
l
#) P ( . ) GO) ' *!
#!
9 N) XB ( ' *!
N*O 0!
3 QPU (
#*n O +
! ) ' 3
G H
{! =
#*n 0 4?
! ) XB ( ( QPU +
qB b 9 .
.u 0 ( Z*
#/Z p 3 .
#!
q
%3 ) .u
' + T
#/Z 3 ) XB
( ) l Q&+
‹ 8 R H
G 5
# 0H 7OY ' GO
#*U
* !
#*n + .
5 . /
&
1. Bardajik
2. Sorting machine 3. Multicollinearity 4. Tolerance
5. Integration over depth 6. Sink
6 .
@. ;! A B
Œ*3 . Y g 7; • 8 #
7 .
@ ;!
6 +D !
Abdolahipour, M., & Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A. (2015). Sustainable use of groundwater for supplemental irrigation of rainfed fig trees of Estahban: Research report, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. (In Persian).
Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., & Sepaskhah, A. R. (2018). Time and amount of supplemental irrigation at different distances from tree trunks influence on soil water distribution, evaporation and evapotranspiration in rainfed fig orchards. Agricultural Water Management, 203, 322-332.
Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Sepaskhah, A. R., Dalir, N., Shabani, A., Honar, T., & Jafari, M. (2019a). Supplemental irrigation and pruning influence on growth characteristics and yield of rainfed fig trees under drought conditions. Fruits, 74(6), 282-293.
Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Sepaskhah, A. R., Zand-Parsa, S., & Honar, T.
(2019b). Effect of time and amount of supplemental irrigation at different distances from tree trunks on quantity and quality of rain-fed fig production Iran Agricultural Research,38(1), 35-46.
Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Sepaskhah, A. R., Zand-Parsa, S., & Honar, T.
(2020). Time and amount of supplemental irrigation at different distances from tree trunks influence on root length density of rainfed fig trees. Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology, 22(4), 1137-1150.
Abdolahipour, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Sepaskhah, A. R., Zand-Parsa, S., Honar, T., &
Razzaghi, F. (2019c). Time and amount of supplemental irrigation at different distances from tree trunks influence on morphological characteristics and physiological responses of rainfed fig trees under drought conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 253, 241-254.
Aksoy, U., Can, H., Hepaksoy, S., & Sahin, N. (2001). Fig cultivaion: Research report, TARP Turkey Agricultural Research Project Press, Izmir, Turkey.
Alswalmeh, H., Al-Obeed, R., & Omar, A. E.-D. K. (2015). Effect of water salinity on seedlings growth of Brown Turkey and Royal fig cultivars. The Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences, 2, 510-516.
Ashraf, M., & Harris, P. (2004). Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants.
Plant Science, 166(1), 3-16.
Bagheri, E., & Sepaskhah, A. R. (2014). Rain-fed fig yield as affected by rainfall distribution.
Theoretical and applied climatology, 117(3-4), 433-439.
Boland, A., Jerie, P., & Maas, E. (1996). Long-term effects of salinity on fruit trees. In: II International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops, 599-606.
Caruso, G., Palai, G., Macheda, D., Marchini, F., Tozzini, L., Solorzano Zambrano, L., Giordani, T., Minnocci, A., Sebastiani, L., & Quartacci, M. (2019). Physiological mechanisms of adaptation of vegetative fig plants to salinity. In: VI International Symposium on Fig 1310, 55-60.
Crisosto, C. H., Bremer, V., Ferguson, L., & Crisosto, G. M. (2010). Evaluating quality attributes of four fresh fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars harvested at two maturity stages.
HortScience, 45(4), 707-710.
Dominguez, A. F. (1990). La higuera: frutal mediterraneo para climas calidos. Madrid, ESP:
Mundi-Prensa.
Flaishman, M. A., Rodov, V., & Stover, E. (2007). The fig: botany, horticulture, and breeding.
In Janick, J. (Ed.), Horticultural reviews. Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Francini, A., Sodini, M., Vicario, G., Raffaelli, A., Gucci, R., Caruso, G., & Sebastiani, L.
(2021). Cations and phenolic compounds concentrations in fruits of fig plants exposed to moderate levels of salinity. Antioxidants, 10(12), 1865.
Golombek, S., & Lüdders, P. (1990). Gas exchange of Ficus carica in response to salinity. Plant Nutrition—Physiology and Applications: Springer.
Golombek, S., & Lüdders, P. (1993). Effects of short-term salinity on leaf gas exchange of the fig (Ficus carica L.). Plant and Soil, 148(1), 21-27.
Grieve, C. M., Grattan, S. R., & Maas, E. V. (2012). Plant salt tolerance. ASCE Manual and Reports on Engineering Practice, 71, 405-459.
Hickethierd, A. (1974). Hickethierd color atlas. In Company, V. N. R. (Ed.), (pp. 85).
Hussain, K., Majeed, A., Nawaz, K., & Nisar, M. F. (2009). Effect of different levels of salinity on growth and ion contents of black seeds (Nigella sativa L.). Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 1(3), 135-138.
Inglese, P., Basile, F., & Schirra, M. (2002). Cactus pear fruit production. In Nobel, P. S. (Ed.), Cacti: Biology and Uses. USA: University of California Press.
İrget, M. E., Aksoy, U., Okur, B., Ongun, A. R., & Tepecik, M. (2008). Effect of calcium based fertilization on dried fig (Ficus carica L. cv. Sarılop) yield and quality. Scientia Horticulturae, 118(4), 308-313.
Kamali, H. R., Abdolahipour, M., & Nahvinia, M. J. (2022). Evaluation of SALTMED model in estimation of wheat yield under deficit irrigation and salinity stress in arid areas (Case study:
Birjand). Water and Irrigation Management, 11(4), 815-827. (In Persian).
Maas, E. (1986). Salt tolerance of plants. Application Agricultural Research, 1, 12-26.
Maas, E. V., & Hoffman, G. J. (1977). Crop salt tolerance-current assessment. Journal of the irrigation and drainage division, 103(2), 115-134.
Madahinasab, N., Amirmohammadi, F. Z., Mohammadi, G., & Shabbani, M. (2019).
Comparison of salt stress tolerance of two fig (Ficus carcia L. ) cultivars under in vitro conditions. Pomology Research, 4(1), 47-59. (In Persian).
Metwali, E. M., Hemaid, I., Al-Zahrani, H., Howlader, S., & Fuller, M. (2014). Influence of different concentrations of salt stress on in vitro multiplication of some fig (Ficus carcia L.) cultivars. Life Science Journal, 10, 11.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
Ochoa, M. J., & Uhart, S. (2006). Nitrogen availability and fruit yield generation in cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica): IV. Effects on fruit quality, 137-144.
Pourghayoumi, M., Bakhshi, D., Rahemi, M., & Jafari, M. (2012). Effect of pollen source on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of dried figs (Ficus carica L.) cvs ‘Payves’ and
‘Sabz’ in Kazerun – Iran. Scientia Horticulturae, 147, 98-104.
Qrunfleh, I. M., Shatnawi, M. M., & Al-Ajlouni, Z. I. (2013). Effect of different concentrations of carbon source, salinity and gelling agent on in vitro growth of fig (Ficus carica L.).
African Journal of Biotechnology, 12(9).
Salimpour, A., Shamili, M., Dadkhodaie, A., Zare, H., & Hadadinejad, M. (2019). Evaluating the salt tolerance of seven fig cultivars (Ficus carica L.). Advances in Horticultural Science, 33(4), 553-565.
Sharifzadeh, M., Kamgar-Haghighi, A. A., Sepaskhah, A. R., Honar, T., Abdolahipour, M., Kamyab, S., & Khosrozadeh, M. (2012). Factors contributing to application of supplemental irrigation technique in fig production: evidence from a survey in Iran: Research report, National Drought Research Institute, Shiraz, Iran. (In Persian).
Soliman, H. I. A., & Abd Alhady, M. R. (2017). Evaluation of salt tolerance ability in some fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars using tissue culture technique. Journal of Applied Biology &
Biotechnology, 5(6), 29-39.
Soni, A., Dhakar, S., & Kumar, N. (2017). Mechanisms and strategies for improving salinity tolerance in fruit crops. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(8), 1917-1924.
Zarei, M., Azizi, M., Rahemi, M., Tehranifar, A., & Davarpanah, S. (2017). Effect of salinity stress on some physiological and biochemical responses of four fig (Ficus carica L.) hybrids.
Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 18(2), 143-158(In Persian).
