Physiological Studies on Fertilization of Mango Trees Grown in Sinai

PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON FERTILIZATION OF MANGO TREES GROWN IN SINAI 1- VEGETATIVE GROWTH AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS BY Atawiea, A.A.*; Bakry,KH.A.*; EL-Desouky,M.** and Zien EL-Deen,E.M.** * Dep. of Hort. Fac. of Agric. Moshtohor, Benha Univ. ** Desert Research Center, Egypt. ABSTRACT This study was conducted in two successive seasons on Sukkary mango cultivar trees grown in an private orchard at wade El-tequnologia region in Sinai, east Suez canal, Ismailia Governorate to study response of mango trees to organic manure sources (poultry manure , sheep dung and compost) ,olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree and inoculation the soil with mixed ( N-fixation and phosphate dissolving bacteria) on vegetative growth and nutritional status of mango trees. Compost , olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree and biofertilization as single use or in combination increased all vegetative growth parameters except number of leaves per shoot obtained from poultry manure as single use or in combination with olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree and biofertilization . Leaf macro elements content enhanced by using compost , olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree and biofertilization as single use or in combination except leaf nitrogen and potassium content obtained from poultry manure as single use or in combination with olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree and biofertilization, but poultry manure as single use or in combination with olive oil waste water by 25 L.\tree and biofertilization increased leaf micro elements content and organic manure source ,olive oil waste water and biofertilization as single use or in combinations failed to show any distinctive effect on total chlorophyll.

INTRODUCTION Mango (Mangifera indica, L) considered the queen fruit among the other fruits . In Egypt ,it ranks after citrus and grape . The growing area of mango is about 84000 feddans (according to the statistics of Ministry of Agric., 2005) . Egyptian mangos are grown on irrigated lands, most of which are sandy and not overly fertile. The soils are alkaline, with pH running from 7.0 to 8.0 as a rule. Many plantings are on "new" or reclaimed lands in the Nile delta north of Cairo and eastward toward Ismailia and the Sinai . Ismailia governorate have more than 40% of plantation area in Egypt . Some of the newest plantings are under drip irrigation, but the vast majority are irrigated by flooding at intervals of 10 to 20 days. Cultivars popular in the domestic market for fresh consumption are 'Awis', 'Zebda', 'Mabrouka', 'Taimour', 'Miska', 'Sukkary' and numerous others. 'Baladi' ("common") trees in considerable variety, Robert and Knight (2004) . Generally, agricultural lands are impoverished and it is necessary to apply high doses of agrochemicals, which in turn pollute significantly the ecosystem. Therefore, in order to make agriculture sustainable, it is necessary to implement a balanced and responsible use of organic agriculture or minimal use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides and a better use of the available natural systems, Estrada (2004).

1 Therefore ,organic manure sources such as poultry manure , sheep dung and agriculture waste (compost) help trees on growth by supplying with N,P,K and some micronutrients , improving soil physical properties and reducing the wastes and application of chemical fertilizers consequently ,reduced pollution. Furthermore, olive oil waste water commonly called (vegetation water "VW" or olive–mill wastewater "OMWW" ) is brown water produces by large amounts from the olive oil either by centrifugal method (about 100 L of OMWW per 100 kg of milled olives) or traditional (or pressure) method (about 40 L per 100 kg of milled olives ) . Because of its high organic matter, P,K and Mg content , using it as fertilizer is one of there ways. It was determined that there is an average 6 kg organic matter per 1 m3 . But it is a powerful pollutant because its high content of polyphenolic compounds which are phytotoxicity, antimicrobial and resistant to degradation . Besides, biofertilization are biological preparation containing primarily potent strains of microorganisms in sufficient numbers .Several investigators showed that inoculation with associative N2- fixers have a great importance to improve growth and increased yield not only due to high N2-fixation activity but also related as well as to ability of these bacteria to produce antibiotics , growth promoting substances , siderophores and the ability to solubilize phosphate ( EL Kafrawy,2005). Hence, the main objective of this work was to test the effect of the application of organic manure sources (poultry manure , sheep dung and compost) , olive oil waste water and biofertilizers as mixed from (Azotobacter, Azospirillium and phosphate dissolving bacteria) on vegetative growth and nutritional status of Sukkary mango trees grown in Sinai . MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was conducted at wade El-tequnologia region in Sinai, east Suez canal , Ismailia Governorate, through two successive seasons (2003 and 2004) on Sukkary mango trees. The mango trees were about 7 years old when this study started , planted according to the square system at 7 meters apart, the soil orchard was sandy soil. The trees received the regular cultural treatments as recommended by the Ministry of agriculture and irrigated through drip irrigation system . Soil type were taken from a depth of 0 -30 cm , from ground surface and were chemically and mechanically analysed before period of equilibration and determined at the Desert Research Center (Table, 1) . Table (1) : Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil used for field experiment at Wadi El-Tequnologia Ismailia Governorate

% Fine sand %Silt %Clay %Total sand Texture class CaCo3% % Co&Se E.C pH

37.2 2..2 - 97.8 Sandy 5.15 60.6 9..3 9..7

Organic Organic Cations mg/l Anions mg/l Total C/N carbon nitrogen nitrogen ppm Ratio ++ + + - 3 -- 4 - % % Ca++ Mg Na K Co3-- Hco So Cl

0.096 176 0.165 5.45 15..3 3.8 20.6 1.2 - 4.0 16.6 22.3

2 One hundred and forty four trees uniform in their vigor, size, shape and disease free , were selected for the investigation to cover growth and nutritional status studies .

-Fertilization treatments : In each season, the organic fertilizers and olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) was analyzed before this study as Tables ( 2 and 3) and applied one time a year at the end of December . Table (3) : Chemical analysis of olive Table(2) : Chemical analysis of organic fertilizers . oil waste water. Organic Organic matter C/N Moisture% Moisture Organic manure N% P2O5% K2o5% 85.30 % carbon % Ratio % % pH 5.10 Poultry manure 2.15 0.85 0.70 17.90 30.80 8.33 E.C.12.5 (ds\m) 19.63 Organic matter % 41.00 Organic carbon % 18.95 Sheep dung 1.85 0.55 0.90 20.95 36.03 11.32 Total10.75 N % 1.75 P2O5 mg\L 836 Compost (Agric. 1.90 0.70 0.65 21.60 37.15 11.37 26.5 wastes) K2o5 mg \L 1050

The active inoculants of Azotobacter chroococcum ,Azospirillum brasilense and phosphate dissolves bacteria (PDB) Bacillus megaterium strains were provided from the microbiological unite, Desert Research Center (D.R.C.), Cairo . One strain of each genius were grown separately on modified Ashby, s medium (Abdel–Malek and Ishac , 1968) , Dobereiner, semi solid malate medium (Dobereiner, 1978) and modified Bunt and Rovira medium (Abdel- Hafez, 1966), respectively for 7 days at 28 ± 2°c . Mixed culture was prepared just before inoculation by adding equal portion of each culture to inoculate the rizosphere of Sukkary mango trees . One liter from Azotobacter , one liter from Azospirillium and one liter from phosphate dissolving bacteria (PDB)) were mixed , dissolved in 144 liter water and added 2 liter \ tree in the 1st February. The experiment involved three factors: The first factor (main plots) consisted from four treatments of organic fertilizers, the second one (sub plots) comprised from three treatments from olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and the third factor (sub sub plots) contained two biofertilization treatments. Therefore, the experiment included (4x3x2 ),24 treatments. Therefore, this experiments included 24 treatments, each treatment replicated three times two trees per each as Table (4). All the selected trees received N at the fixed rate namely recommended rate i.e., 950 g N/tree. The following data were recorded : 1- Vegetative growth :- On late March in both 2003 and 2004 seasons, twenty shoots of the spring flush were selected and tagged around the periphery of each tree . Shoot length (cm) and number of leaves /shoot were carried out on each tree . Moreover, during 2003 and 2004 seasons, 20 mature leaves of the spring cycle were collected from each tree for determining length (L) and width (W) . Leaf shape index was calculated = L/W. In addition, leaf area (LA) was stimulating by using formula Leaf area (LA) = 0.70 (LxW) -1.06 according to Ahmed and Morsy (1999).

3 Table (4) : The design of the present experiment . Main blot Sub blot Sub sub blot Uninoculated with biofertilization Without olive oil waste water Inoculated with biofertilization Without (organic Uninoculated with biofertilization Olive oil waste water (25L/tree) fertilization) Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Olive oil waste water (50L/tree) Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Without olive oil waste water Inoculated with biofertilization

Poultry manure Uninoculated with biofertilization 3 Olive oil waste water (25L/tree) 10 m / feddan Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Olive oil waste water (50L/tree) Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Without olive oil waste water Inoculated with biofertilization Sheep dung 10 Uninoculated with biofertilization 3 Olive oil waste water (25L/tree) m / feddan Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Olive oil waste water (50L/tree) Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Without olive oil waste water Inoculated with biofertilization Compost Uninoculated with biofertilization (Agriculture Olive oil waste water (25L/tree) waste) 50kg/tree Inoculated with biofertilization Uninoculated with biofertilization Olive oil waste water (50L/tree) Inoculated with biofertilization 2-Leaf sampling, preparation for analysis and analytical methods :

In both seasons and in early April the third pair of leaves from the base nun-fruiting of spring growth shoots were selected and tagged according to Qaoud (2005). Tagging was accomplished through making holes with leather punch to secure leaf sample of the same age. Ten tagged leaves from each tree were collected carefully at random at the end of September in both 2003 and 2004 seasons. As soon as the leaf samples were picked, they were cleaned with cloth damp to remove any residues that might effect the results, Labanauskas (1966) .The leaves were oven dried at 70 °C for 48 hours, ground and stored in small pockets prior to analysis.

4 Plant material (0.2 g) was digested using hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid as recommended by Parkinson and Allen (1975). The digested material were transferred quantitatively to 50ml volumetric flask and raised up to the uniformity volume using to determined as follow :- 2-1-Total nitrogen was determined in by semi-micro kjeldahl method as recommended by Pregl, (1945). 2-2-Phosphorus was calorimetrically determined using the molybdenum blow method according Chapman and Pratt, (1961). 2-3- Potassium was determined by the flam photometer according to the method of Brown and Lilleland (1946). 2-4- Ca , Mg , Fe, Mn and Zn were estimated by the atomic absorption spectrophotometer by Allan and Prince, (1965) . 3 - Average total chlorophyll content :- Total chlorophyll content (in fresh leaves ) was measured on the third leaf from the base at the end of August in field by using Minolta meter SPAD-502 . - Statistical analysis : Data recorded in two seasons were subjected to analysis of variance by MSTAT-C statistical package (MSTAT-C, 1990) . Duncan’s multiple rang test at the level of 5 % was used according to Duncan (1955). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1-Vegetative growth :- Data presented in Tables ( 5-10 ) indicated that organic manure sources ( poultry manure, sheep dung and compost) increased all vegetative growth parameters. However, poultry manure treatment surpassed the other two treatments number of leaves per shoot followed by compost, but compost treatment surpassed the other two treatments in shoot length, leaf length, leaf width, leaf shape index and leaf area followed by poultry manure and sheep dung gave the lowest increase in all vegetative growth parameters during both seasons. Single use of olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree enhanced all vegetative growth parameters compared with untreated trees and using it at 25L.\tree was better than at 50L\tree during both seasons of study . As for inoculate trees with biofertilization gave the highest values of all vegetative growth parameters compared with uninoculated trees. Fertilization mango trees with organic manure and inoculation with biofertilization gave better results than single organic fertilization in both seasons In addition , compost + biofertilization gave the highest values in all vegetative growth parameters except number of leaves per shoot which increased with poultry manure + biofertilization. Use olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree and organic manure had positive result than single organic manure . Besides, using olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree and organic manure was better than using it at 50 L.\tree with organic manure and compost + olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree surpassed on other combination in all vegetative growth parameters except number of leaves per shoot which increased with poultry manure + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree . Using biofertilization with olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree gave the highest values compared with use olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree in all vegetative growth parameters during both seasons of study .

5 Generally, biofertilization with all combinations of organic manure and olive oil waste water improved all vegetative growth parameters. Using olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization was better than using organic manure with biofertilization without olive oil waste water in all vegetative growth . Besides, using olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization was better than using it at 50 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization . Compost + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree + biofertilization surpassed all other combinations on all vegetative growth parameters except number of leaves per shoot which increased with poultry manure + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree + biofertilization . These results of organic manure source on vegetative growth parameters are in agreement with those obtained by Moustafa (2002) on Washington navel orange trees , Salama (2002) on Balady mandarin trees and Dudi et al ., (2003) on kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata). Besides, the content of olive oil waste water from macro and micro nutrients and supply of organic matter but surpassed of low level on high level perhaps due to its content from polyphenolic powerful pollutant which are phytotoxic, antimicrobial and resistant to degradation and led to an inhibition of growth. On the other hand , the presence of phytotoxic compounds mainly phenols and acidity of wastes can induce negative effects on soil microbial activities (Tomati &Galli,1992) These results of olive oil waste water on vegetative growth parameters are in agreement with those obtained by Murillo et al., (2000) on olive trees and Meerbach (2004) on young orchard trees (olive , date palms and various fruit trees ). Furthermore, inoculated trees gave higher vegetative growth parameters than uninoculated trees these results due to production of growth regulators as well as N-fixation of Azotobacter spp .and Azospirillum spp . These results of biofertilization on vegetative growth parameters are in agreement with those obtained by Moustafa (2002) on Washington navel orange trees and Salama (2002) on Balady mandarin trees.

2-Nutritional status :- Concerning nutritional status data tabulated in Tables (11-18) show that organic manure source ( poultry manure, sheep dung and compost) increased all macro and micro elements. However, compost treatment surpassed all other treatments on all macro elements followed by poultry manure. However, the highest values of leaf nitrogen and potassium content were obtained from poultry manure followed by compost treatment. Sheep dung gave the lowest increase in all macro elements followed by control during both seasons. In addition , poultry manure treatment surpassed on other treatments on all micro elements. Use olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree enhanced all macro and micro elements compared with untreated trees and using it at 25L.\tree was better than at 50L\tree in both seasons except the highest values of leaf magnesium content. Inoculate trees with biofertilization gave the highest values of all macro and micro elements compared with uninoculated trees. Fertilization mango trees with organic manure and inoculation with biofertilization gave better results than organic fertilization only during both seasons. In addition, compost + biofertilization gave the highest values in all macro elements except leaf nitrogen and potassium content were obtained from poultry manure + biofertilization. Moreover, poultry manure + biofertilization gave the highest values in all micro elements. Using olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree with organic

6 manure had positive result than organic manure only . Besides, using olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree with organic manure was better than using it at 50 L.\tree with organic manure in all macro and micro elements except leaf magnesium content was increased by using olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree + organic manure and compost + olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree surpassed on other combination in all macro elements. The highest values of leaf nitrogen and potassium content were obtained from poultry manure + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree but, the highest values of leaf magnesium content was obtained from compost + olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree . Using biofertilization with olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree were better than single use of olive oil waste water or with 50 L.\tree in all macro and micro elements except the highest values of leaf magnesium content was obtained from using olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree in both seasons. Generally, biofertilization improved all macro elements with all combination of organic manure and olive oil waste water and using olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization better than using organic manure with biofertilization without olive oil waste water. Besides, using olive oil waste water at 25 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization was better than using it at 50 L.\tree with organic manure and biofertilization in all macro and micro elements except leaf magnesium content increased by use olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree + organic manure + biofertilization. Compost + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree + biofertilization surpassed all other combinations in all macro elements except the highest values of leaf nitrogen and potassium content were obtained from poultry manure + olive oil waste water at 25L.\tree + biofertilization, but the highest values of leaf magnesium content was obtained from compost + olive oil waste water at 50 L.\tree + biofertilization. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Abou Sayed (1997) on 15-year-old Baladi mandarin (Citrus deliciosa, Tanaka) grown in sandy soil , El-Kobbia (1999) on navel orange, Awad (2000) on one-year-old seedless grape cv. Flame transplants grown in sandy soil in a greenhouse, Moustafa (2002) on Washington navel orange trees, Salama (2002) on Balady mandarin trees of 10-years-old age and Gamal and Ragab (2003) on Balady mandarins in sandy soil. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Haggag and Azzazy (1996) on 6-month-old mango seedlings and Usha et al., (2004) kinnow mandarin plants. These results of organic manure source on leaf macro and micro elements content are in agreement with those obtained by Abou Sayed (1997) on Baladi mandarin (Citrus deliciosa, Tanaka), El-Kobbia (1999) on navel orange, Awad (2000) on grape seedlings, Moustafa (2002) on Washington navel orange trees, Salama (2002) on Balady mandarin trees and Gamal and Ragab (2003) on the nutritional status of Balady mandarins on sandy soil. Besides, the height values of leaf mineral content and the surpassing of the low level on the height level perhaps due to the polyphenoles and phytotoxic in its content as precedence . These results of olive oil waste water on leaf elements content are in agreement with those obtained by Anac et al ., (1993) on Maize. Furthermore, inoculated Sukkary mango trees with biofertilization gave higher leaf elements content than uninoculated trees this results due to production of growth regulators as well as N-fixation of Azotobacter spp. ;Azospirillum spp and the feasibility of phosphorous at phosphate dissolving bacteria .

7 These results of biofertilization on leaf elements content are in agreement with those obtained by Chokha et al., (1993) on sweet orange cv. Mosambi plants, Godara et al., (1996) on peach seedlings and Sharma and Bhutani (2000) on apple seedlings. 3- Leaf chlorophyll content : Data in Table ( 19 ) indicated that use organic manure source ,olive oil waste water and biofertilization as single or with different combinations failed to show any distinctive effect on total chlorophyll of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons, but organic manure, olive oil waste water at 25 or 50 L.\tree or biofertilization was better than untreated trees (control). These results are in agreement with those obtained by Abou Sayed (1997) on 15-year-old Baladi mandarin (Citrus deliciosa, Tanaka) trees, Awad (2000) on one-year-old seedless grape cv. Flame transplants grown in sandy soil in a greenhouse, Grassi et al., (2001) on citrus (Citrus limonia) nursery plants Kerni and Gupta (1986 ) on mango seedlings, Sharma and Bhutani (1998) on apple plants and Mahmoud and Mahmoud (1999) on Nemaguard peach seedlings. LITERATURE CITED Abdel-Hafez, A.M. (1966) :Some studies on acid producing microorganisms in soil and rizosphere with special reference to phosphate dissolvers. Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, Egypt. Abd-El-Malak, Y. and Ishac, Y.Z. (1968):Evaluation of methods used in counting Azotobacter. J. App. Bacteriol., 31:26-28. Abou Sayed, T.A. (1997): Growth and fruiting of Baladi mandarin trees in relation to some soil fertilization treatments in sandy soil. 2- Leaf and root responses to the applied treatments. Zagazig J. Agic. Res., 24 (6):1049-1063. Ahmed, F.F. and Morsy, M.H. (1999): A new method for measuring leaf area in different fruit species. Minia of Agric. Res. &Develop. Vol. (19) pp 97-105. Allan,B. and Prince,S. (1965): Absorption, spectrophotometery. Univ., of Hampshire, Durham, Hampshire. Anac, D.; Hakerlerler, H.; Irget, M.E.; Fragoso, M.A. and Beusichem, M.L. (1993): The use of industrial wastes as manures : a case study with effluent made from an olive oil processing plant. Optimization of plant nutrition, 31 August-8 September 1992, Lisbon, Portugal. 83-86; 10ref. Awad, S.M. (2000): Effect of irradiated poultry manure on growth and leaf nutrients content of grape transplants. Annals of Agricultural Science Cairo, 45: 1, 315-325; 11 ref. Brown, J.D. and Lilleland, O. (1946): Rapid determination of potassium and sodium in plant material and soil extracts by flame-photometry. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci., 48: 341-346. Chapman, H. D. and Pratt, P. P. (1961) : Methods of analysis for soil, plants and waters . Univ. of Calif. Division of Agric. Sci. Sci. Berkely, pp. 309. Chokha, S.; Sharma, B.B. and Singh, C. (1993): Leaf nutrient composition of sweet orange as affected by combined use of bio and chemical fertilizers. South Indian Horticulture. 41: 3, 131.134; 9 ref. Dobereiner, J. (1978): Influence of environmental factors on the occurrence of Spirillum lipoferum in soil and roots. Ecol. Bull. (Stokholm), 26:343-352. Dudi, O.P; Dal, S.; Dahiya, S.S. and Bhatia, S.K. (2003): Impact of various levels of N and FYM on growth parameters of kinnow mandarin. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 32 (1/2): 29-31 Duncan, D.B. (1955): Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. EL Kafrawy, A. A. (2005):Physiological studies on banana plant. Ph. D. Thesis Fac. of Agric. Benha Univ.

8 El-Kobbia, A.M. (1999): Response of Washington navel orange to organic fertilizer “biohumus” and cattle manure application. Alexandria Journal of Agricultural Research, 44 (2): 199-207. Estrada, C.G. (2004): Evaluation of a biofertilizers, clearing and fruit bagging in mango ‘kent’. Acta Hort. 645:217-221. Gamal, A. M. and Ragab, M. A. (2003): Effect of organic manure source and its rate on growth, nutritional status of the trees and productivity of Balady mandarin trees. Assuit Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(6): 253-264 Godara, R.K.; Awasthi, R.P. and Kaith, N.S. (1996): Interaction effect of VA. mycorrhizae and Azotobacter inoculation on micro nutrient content of peach seedlings. Journal of Hill Research. 9: 1, 5 -10; 8 ref. Grassi, F.H.; Pereira, M.A.; Savino, A.A. and Rodrigues, V.T. (2001): Effect of different growth media on development of “Rangpur” lime seedlings. Laranja, 22(1): 157-166. Haggag, M.N. and Azzazy, M.A. (1996): Evaluation of Microbien as a multistrains biofertilizer for production of improved mango seedlings with appropriate vigor for grafting in shorter time. Annals of Agricultural Science, Cairo, 41(1): 321-331. Kerni, P.N. and Gupta, A. (1986): Growth parameters affected by azotobacterization of mango seedlings in comparison to different nitrogen doses. Research and Development Reporter, 3: 2, 77-79; 5 ref. Labanauskas, C.K., (1966): Effect of arrange leaf- washing techniques on removal of surface contaminants and nutrient losses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 89: 201-10. Mahmoud, H.M. and Mahmoud, F.A. (1999): Studies on effect of some biofertilizers on growth of peach seedlings and root rot disease incidence. Egyptian Journal of Horticulture, 26: 1, 7-18; 22 ref. MSTAT-C. (1990): A Microcomputer program for the Design, Management and Analysis of Agronomic Research Experiments. Michigan State University. Meerbach,D. (2004):The Al-Birch demonstration project on agricultural reuse of waste water in the West Bank .Waterlines, 23(1) 12-14 . Moustafa, M.H. (2002): Studies on fertilization of Washington navel orange trees. Ph.D. Dissertation, Fac. of Agric., Moshtohor, Zagazig University, Benha Branch, Egypt. Murillo, J.; Lopez,R.; Ffernandez, J.E. and Cabrera, F. (2000) : Olive trees response to irrigation with waste water from the table olive industry . Irrigation Science 19(4) : 175-180 . Parkinson, J.A. and Allen, S.E. (1975):A wet oxidation Procedure suitable for the determination of nitrogen and mineral nutrients in biological material. Common Soil Sci. and Plant Analysis,6 (1):1-11. Pregl, E. (1945): Quantitative Organic Micro Analysis. 4th Ed. Chundril, London. Qaoud, S.M. (2005): Physiological studies on the effect of paclobutrazol on mango trees. M. Sc., Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Suez canal University, Ismallia, Egypt. Robert, J. and Knight, J. R. (2004): Report on the Egyptian Mango Industry. MMIV - Volume 1 Number 4 Whole Number 4 Tropical Visions . Salama, A. S. (2002): Response of some fruit species transplants and trees to organic fertilization. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Moshtohor, Zagazig University, Benha Branch, Egypt.

9 Sharma, S.D. and Bhutani, V.P. (1998): Response of apple seedlings to VAM, Azotobacter and inorganic fertilizers. Horticultural Journal. 11: 1, 1-8; 10 ref. ------and ------(2000): Leaf nutrient status of apple seedlings as influenced by VAM, Azotobacter and inorganic fertilizers. Journal of Hill. Research. 13: 2, 63-66; 15 ref. Tomati, U. and Galli, E. (1992):The fertilizing value of waste waters from the olive processing industry. Kubat, J. (ed). PP. 117-126. Usha, K.; Saxena, A. and Singh, B. (2004): Rhizosphere dynamics influenced by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (Glomus deserticola) and related changes in leaf nutrient status and yield of Kinnow mandarin (Citrus nobilis) x Willow Leaf (Citrus deliciosa). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 55(5): 571-576. دراسات فسيولوجية علي تسميد أشجار المانجو النامية في سيناء 1- النمو الخضرى والحالة الغذائية احمد احمد رزق عطوية*- خالد على بكرى*- محمود ابراهيم الد سوقى**- عيد محمد زين الدين** * قسم البساتين – كلية الزراعة بمشتهر – جامعة بنها ** مركز بحوث الصحراء - مصر الملخص العربي أجريت هذه الدراسة خلل موسمي 2003 و 2004 علي أشجار المانجو صنف السكري النامية في مزرعة خاصة بمنطقة وادي التكنولوجيا بسيناء شرق قناة السويس بمحافظة السماعيلية بهدف دراسة استجابة أشجار المانجو للتسميد بثلثة مصادر من السماد العضوي (مخلفات الدواجن ومخلفات الغنام والمخلفات النباتية "الكمبوست") والمخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون والتسميد الحيوي . وقد تم اخذ قياسات النمو الخضري ( طول الفرخ و عدد الوراق علي الفرخ و طول وعرض وشكل ومساحة الورقة ) و محتوي الوراق من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى ( النيتروجين و الفوسفور و البوتاسيوم و الكالسيوم والماغنسيوم والحديد والمنجنيز والزنك) 0كما تم تقدير محتوي الوراق من الكلوروفيل الكلي. ويمكن تلخيص أهم النتائج المتحصل عليها فيما يلي:- أول – النمو الخضري :- 1- أدت معاملت التسميد العضوي بصفة عامة إلي زيادة جميع قياسات النمو الخضري تحت الدراسة وكانت معاملة الكمبوست أكثر تفوقا على سماد الدواجن والغنام في جميع قياسات النمو الخضري ما عدا عدد الوراق لكل نمو حيث تفوقت المعاملة بسماد مخلفات الدواجن في هذا الصدد. كما أوضحت الدراسة تفوق معاملة المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 أو 50 لتر / شجرة مقارنة بالكنترول في جميع قياسات النمو الخضري وكانت معاملة المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة أفضل من 50 لتر للشجرة 0 كما لوحظ أن معاملت التسميد الحيوي أدت إلي زيادة جميع قياسات النمو الخضري مقارنة بالشجار الغير معاملة (الكنترول) 0 كما أدت معاملت التسميد العضوي والتسميد الحيوي معا إلي زيادة جميع قياسات النمو الخضري مقارنة بالشجار المعاملة بالتسميد العضوي بدون تسميد حيوي وتفوقت معاملة الكمبوست + التسميد الحيوي على باقي المعاملت في جميع قياسات النمو الخضري ما عدا عدد الوراق لكل فرخ فقد تفوقت فيها معاملة مخلفات الدواجن + التسميد الحيوي 0 كما أوضحت الدراسة أن استخدام التسميد الحيوي + التسميد العضوي و المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 أو 50 لتر / شجرة أدت إلى تحسين جميع قياسات النمو الخضري مقارنة بالشجار المعاملة بالتسميد العضوي + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بدون تسميد حيوي وأعطت معاملة الكمبوست + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة + التسميد الحيوي أعلي القيم في جميع قياسات النمو الخضري ما عدا عدد الوراق لكل فرخ حيث تم الحصول علي أعلى قيمة فيها من معاملة مخلفات الدواجن + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة + التسميد الحيوي 0 ثانيا – الحالة الغذائية :-

10 أدت معاملت التسميد العضوي بصفة عامة إلي زيادة محتوي الوراق من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى وتفوقت معاملة الكمبوست على باقي معاملت التسميد العضوي الخرى في محتوي الوراق من العناصر الكبرى (الفوسفور والكالسيوم الماغنسيوم) أما (النيتروجين والبوتاسيوم) فقد تم الحصول علي اعلي القيم فيها من معاملة مخلفات الدواجن في حين تفوقت معاملة مخلفات الدواجن علي باقي معاملت التسميد العضوي الخرى في محتوى الورقة من العناصر الصغرى 0كما أدت المعاملة بالمخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 أو 50 لتر / شجرة إلي زيادة محتوي الورقة من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى وكانت معاملة المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة أفضل من 50 لتر للشجرة في هذا الصدد ما عدا محتوي الورقة من عنصر الماغنسيوم فقد تفوقت معاملة المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 50 لتر / شجرة في زيادة محتوي الوراق من الماغنسيوم 0كما لوحظ أن معاملت التسميد الحيوي أدت إلي زيادة محتوي الورقة من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى مقارنة بالشجار الغير معاملة 0 كما لوحظ أن استخدام التسميد الحيوي + التسميد العضوي و المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 أو 50 لتر / شجرة إلى تحسين محتوي الوراق من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى مقارنة بالشجار المعاملة بالتسميد العضوي + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون وبدون تسميد حيوي وأعطت معاملة الكمبوست + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة + التسميد الحيوي أعلي القيم في محتوي الوراق من العناصر الكبرى والصغرى ما عدا النيتروجين والبوتاسيوم فقد تفوقت المعاملة بمخلفات الدواجن + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 25 لتر / شجرة + التسميد الحيوي 0 كما لوحظ أن محتوي الوراق من عنصر الماغنسيوم قد زاد نتيجة لمعاملة أشجار المانجو صنف السكري بالكمبوست + المخلفات السائلة لعصر الزيتون بمعدل 50 لتر / شجرة + التسميد الحيوي 0 ثالثا- محتوي الوراق من الكلوروفيل :- أوضحت الدراسة أن جميع المعاملت أدت إلي زيادة محتوي الوراق من الكلوروفيل الكلي خلل موسمي الدراسة مقارنة بالشجار الغير معاملة ولكن الفرق بين المعاملت غير معنوي ما عدا معاملة التسميد العضوي في الموسم الثاني.

11 Table ( 5 ) : Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source(O.M.) ; olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on shoot length (cm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

A-Specific effect of organic manure source(O.M.), olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Organic manure source(O.M.) Olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) Biofertilization 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Without Poultry Cheep Without Poultry Cheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.O.W.W (O.O.W.W (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung .) tree tree .) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 40.00 43.76 41.07 44.63 35.58 42.86 41.74 43.19 40.30 44.70 42.70 40.10 41.62 40.82 36.29 48.44 34.27 47.42 A A A A B A A A B A B A A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) B-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste water and Biofertilization(Bio.) water (O.O.W.W.) (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Witout With Without With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 34.05 45.95 32.04 39.13 Without 34.02 39.81 41.95 33.59 37.11 36.06 Without 34.58 45.74 32.18 46.45 (O.M.) D B C B (O.M.) H EFG C-F C BC BC (O.O.W.W.) D B B A Poultry 38.98 48.54 39.18 51.55 Poultry 40.91 48.53 45.18 43.34 44.42 41.63 25 L \ 34.86 49.98 35.18 48.02 manure C B B A manure DEF AB A-D AB AB ABC tree D A B A 35.97 46.16 31.49 46.54 35.72 46.75 43.36 41.22 43.93 37.92 Cheep dung Cheep dung CD B C A GH ABC C-F ABC AB BC 50 L \ 39.43 49.60 35.46 47.77 36.15 53.10 33.93 52.44 38.42 49.37 44.32 42.00 47.33 41.60 tree C A B A Compost Compost CD A BC A FGH A B-E AB A ABC E-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) , olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 o.o.w.w Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 28.53 38.90 33.40 34.64 29.73 33.72 30.07 42.05 35.54 38.68 30.52 36.65 Without (O.M.) J E-H HIJ GHIJ J HIJ F B-F C-F C-F F C-F 38.70 48.03 52.50 53.97 43.10 48.10 34.28 45.61 52.09 52.40 43.72 50.94 Poultry manure FGH A-D ABC AB DEF A-D C-F ABC AB AB A-D AB 32.92 43.73 51.10 52.75 31.40 41.72 31.60 32.37 50.69 50.84 31.85 31.74 Cheep dung HIJ DEF ABC ABC IJ D-G EF DEF AB AB DEF DEF 38.16 47.73 51.46 55.33 40.91 45.99 34.28 43.08 51.40 54.56 35.77 41.06 Compost F-I BCD ABC A D-E CDE C-F A-E AB A C-F B-F Means having the same letter (s) With in column or row are not significantly different at 5% level

12 Table (6): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source(O.M.); olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on number of leaves per shoot of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 20.16 23.83 21.15 22.83 18.26 21.76 21.34 21.54 21.19 22.79 21.98 20.58 20.96 20.64 18.34 25.64 18.05 23.41 B A B A B A A A B A AB A A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Withou With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) t (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 16.40 17.87 15.96 16.37 Without 18.15 22.15 19.06 16.66 19.38 17.34 Without 18.06 23.83 16.57 21.92 (O.M.) D D D D (O.M.) E ABC DE D C D (O.O.W.W.) C B D B Poultry 23.92 27.78 20.51 26.31 Poultry 22.68 24.89 21.80 21.55 23.21 21.23 18.56 27.53 19.35 25.35 25 L \ tree manure B A C A manure ABC A A-D AB A ABC C A C A 18.19 24.10 16.84 23.00 22.23 23.90 20.77 21.24 22.13 20.79 Sheep dung Sheep dung D B D B ABC ABC CDE ABC AB BC 18.39 25.57 18.21 22.94 50 L \ tree 20.88 26.77 20.57 26.23 22.40 24.27 21.57 21.28 22.69 21.20 C AB C B Compost Compost C A C A ABC AB BCD ABC AB ABC E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 o.o.w.w Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 14.93 26.60 17.55 18.74 16.73 21.27 15.33 21.85 16.53 16.60 15.83 16.30 Without (O.M.) H AB FGH E-H FGH C-F F D EF EF EF EF 20.00 27.80 20.47 29.05 22.17 27.00 16.90 26.75 23.03 29.08 23.39 26.07 Poultry manure EFG AB D-G A CDE AB EF AB D A CD BC 19.50 24.90 16.30 24.36 16.85 26.41 16.55 26.25 16.57 25.87 16.00 18.85 Sheep dung EFG ABC GH BCD FGH AB EF AB EF BC EF E 17.80 26.67 19.93 27.30 17.80 27.62 17.50 26.55 16.72 25.92 16.50 26.47 Compost E-H AB EFG AB E-H AB EF AB EF BC EF BC Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level .

13 Table ( 7 ) : Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source(O.M.); olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf length(cm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons. A-Specific effect of organic manure source(O.M.), olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Organic manure source(O.M.) Olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) Bio. fertilization 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Without Poultry Cheep Without Poultry Cheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost 50 L \ tree (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 20.91 22.01 21.19 22.36 21.39 22.18 22.09 22.31 21.35 21.84 21.67 21.73 22.39 21.85 20.03 23.21 21.35 22.63 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) C-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste water and Biofertilization(Bio.) water (O.O.W.W.) (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.)

Bio. 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 o.o.w.w Bio Without Without Without Without With 50 L \ Without With Without With With (Bio.) (O.O.W. 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree (O.O.W.W 25 L \ tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic Organic W.) .) o.o.w.w 19.38 22.33 20.32 22.46 19.47 21.35 19.73 20.62 22.07 21.38 Without Without D AB B A Without C AB B A A A (O.O.W.W.) 19.81B 22.89 20.69 22.27 (O.M.) (O.M.) A C ABC Poultry 20.29 23.00 21.67 22.77 Poultry 22.17 22.20 21.88 22.17 22.57 21.80 20.23 23.36 22.18 23.02 25 L \ tree manure CD A AB A manure A A A A A A B A ABC A 19.49 22.33 21.59 22.52 21.65 22.10 21.72 21.98 22.45 21.40 Cheep dung Cheep dung D AB AB A A A AB A A A 20.05 23.11 21.18 22.60 50 L \ tree 19.49 23.72 21.83 22.78 22.18 23.03 21.92 22.40 23.15 21.92 B A BC AB Compost Compost D A AB A A A A A A A E-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) , olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Without (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 17.77 19.77 20.40 23.95 20.30 22.00 19.27 21.30 23.30 23.13 21.70 22.27 (O.M.) G EFG EFG AB EFG A-E C ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC Poultry 19.50 20.13 23.80 24.10 20.60 23.23 19.90 21.70 22.70 23.50 21.80 22.47 manure EFG EFG AB A C-G ABC ABC ABC ABC AB ABC ABC 18.83 19.97 23.30 24.07 20.47 23.17 19.80 21.37 22.63 23.43 21.80 22.43 Cheep dung FG EFG ABC A D-G A-D ABC ABC ABC AB ABC ABC 19.63 21.17 23.87 24.60 20.93 23.27 21.20 22.00 23.00 23.60 21.80 22.53 Compost EFG B-E AB A C-F ABC ABC ABC ABC A ABC ABC Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

14 Table (8) : Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf width(cm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Cheep Without Poultry Cheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 5.39 5.51 5.48 5.56 5.41 5.63 5.61 5.79 5.44 5.52 5.50 5.50 5.86 5.51 5.25 5.72 5.31 5.93 A A A A B AB AB A A A A B A B B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure C-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste water source(O.M.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) water (O.O.W.W.) (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 5.04 5.59 5.13 5.63 Without 5.28 5.33 5.30 5.23 5.33 5.30 Without(O 5.22 5.67 5.15 5.84 (O.M.) C AB D BCD (O.M.) A A A D CD D .O.W.W.) C ABC B A Poultry 5.23 5.74 5.23 5.99 Poultry 5.40 5.77 5.48 5.50 6.03 5.67 25 L \ 5.30 5.81 5.63 6.08 manure BC A CD AB manure A A A BCD AB A-D tree C A A A Cheep 5.20 5.73 5.18 5.89 5.35 5.60 5.43 5.32 6.02 5.48 Cheep dung dung BC A CD AB A A A D ABC BCD 50 L \ 5.23 5.69 5.15 5.88 5.52 5.82 5.70 6.22 5.53 5.85 5.50 5.45 6.25 5.88 tree BC AB B A Compost Compost AB A ABC A A A A BCD A A-D E-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) , olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 4.87 4.90 5.57 5.90 5.17 5.63 4.77 4.87 5.73 6.10 5.03 5.73 Without (O.M.) E DE A-E ABC A-E A-E G FG B-G ABC D-G B-G 5.07 5.17 5.77 5.93 5.50 5.70 5.03 5.43 5.93 6.20 5.63 5.83 Poultry manure B-E A-E A-D AB A-E A-E D-G B-G A-D AB B-G F 5.03 5.17 5.77 5.90 5.43 5.70 4.90 5.10 5.90 6.13 5.57 5.80 Cheep dung CDE A-E A-D ABC A-E A-E EFG C-G A-E AB B-G A-F 5.10 5.43 5.80 6.00 5.53 5.70 5.07 5.93 6.13 6.77 5.60 5.73 Compost B-E A-E ABC A A-E A-E D-G A-D AB A B-G B-G Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

15 Table ( 9 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf shape index L\W of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons. Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 3.65 4.03 3.66 4.11 3.93 3.91 4.04 4.37 3.89 3.79 4.31 3.89 Without (O.M.) BC AB BC ABC ABC ABC ABC A ABC BC AB ABC 3.85 3.89 4.12 4.06 3.75 4.08 3.94 3.94 3.83 3.79 3.87 3.85 Poultry manure ABC ABC A AB BC AB ABC ABC BC BC ABC BC 3.74 3.86 4.04 4.08 3.77 4.06 4.04 4.04 3.84 3.82 3.88 3.87 Sheep dung BC ABC AB AB BC AB ABC ABC BC BC ABC ABC 3.85 3.56 4.12 4.10 3.78 4.08 4.20 4.20 3.75 3.49 3.80 3.80 Compost ABC C A A BC AB ABC ABC BC C BC BC

Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

16 Table ( 10 ) :Specific and Interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.) ; olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) on leaf area (cm)2 of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

A-Specific effect of organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) Organic manure source (O.M.) Olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) Biofertilization (Bio.) 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Without Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without with Without with Compost (o.o.w.w (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung Compost tree tree (o.o.w.w.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) .) 76.58 83.98 82.66 87.60 80.76 86.61 84.73 91.95 69.81 94.84 83.47 73.92 97.56 86.56 77.64 87.77 81.31 90.71 B A A A A A A A C A B C A B B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil D-Interaction between olive oil waste water (O.M.) and biofertilization (Bio.) waste water (O.O.W.W.) (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) Bio 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 o.o.w.w Bio Withou with Without( with Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without with Without with t(Bio.) (Bio.) Bio.) (Bio.) (o.o.w.w.) tree tree (o.o.w.w.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic Organic o.o.w.w Without 70.14 83.02 75.68 85.84 Without 63.13 87.58 97.02 67.42 93.05 81.81 Without 65.48 74.14 68.26 79.57 (O.M.) C B C ABC (O.M.) E ABC CD D AB BCD (o.o.w.w.) D C D C Poultry 80.49 87.47 82.23 90.99 Poultry 69.97 97.03 84.94 75.04 97.05 87.74 25 L \ 90.61 99.07 92.90 102.20 manure B AB BC AB manure DE AB BC CD AB BC tree B A AB A Sheep 78.35 86.98 81.22 88.24 Sheep dung 68.22 95.70 84.07 71.04 95.94 87.21 dung BC AB BC ABC DE AB BC D AB BC 50 L \ 76.82 90.11 82.78 90.34 81.58 93.62 86.13 97.77 77.92 99.06 85.83 82.16 104.20 89.50 tree C B BC B Compost B A ABC A Compost CD A BC BCD A ABC

E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) , olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio Without Without Without Without Without Without Organic (Bio.) with (Bio.) (Bio.) with (Bio.) (Bio.) with (Bio.) (Bio.) with (Bio.) (Bio.) with (Bio.) (Bio.) With (Bio.) 59.52 66.75 78.48 96.68 72.41 85.64 63.28 71.55 88.39 97.71 75.35 88.26 Without (O.M.) H FGH C-H ABC E-H A-F G D-G A-F ABC C-G A-F 68.15 71.79 95.07 98.98 78.25 91.63 68.66 81.42 93.17 100.93 84.85 90.64 Poultry manure E-H E-H A-D AB C-H A-D EFG B-G A-D AB B-G A-E 56.24 71.21 93.05 98.35 76.75 91.39 66.85 75.23 92.40 99.49 84.40 90.01 Sheep dung GH E-H A-D AB D-H A-D FG C-G A-D AB B-G A-F 69.02 86.80 95.85 102.26 79.96 91.79 74.24 90.09 97.63 110.78 86.38 92.46 Compost E-H A-E A-D A B-G A-D C-G A-F ABC A B-F A-D Means having the same letter (s) within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

17 Table ( 11 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf nitrogen content (%) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without 1.17 1.22 1.17 1.27 Without 1.13 1.27 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.23 Without 1.28 1.34 1.31 1.37 (O.M.) F E E D (O.M.) G E F E D D (O.O.W.W.) A A C A Poultry 1.44 1.46 1.43 1.46 Poultry 1.43 1.47 1.46 1.44 1.45 1.44 25 L \ 1.36 1.37 1.34 1.38 manure A A AB A manure A A A AB A AB tree A A B A 1.31 1.35 1.33 1.36 1.33 1.34 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.33 Sheep dung Sheep dung D C C C D CD CD C C C 50 L \ 1.33 1.36 1.34 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.37 1.39 1.39 1.41 1.41 1.40 tree A A B A Compost Compost BC B B B BC B B B AB B E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 1.08 1.18 1.25 1.28 1.18 1.19 1.10 1.27 1.19 1.27 1.21 1.27 Without (O.M.) L K J IJ K K K I J I J I 1.41 1.44 1.46 1.47 1.45 1.46 1.41 1.44 1.45 1.47 1.43 1.46 Poultry manure A-D ABC A A AB A A-E ABC ABC A ABC AB 1.33 1.33 1.29 1.38 1.30 1.35 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.32 1.36 Sheep dung F-I F-I HIJ DEF G-J D-G HI GH FGH E-H HI D-H 1.35 1.39 1.38 1.40 1.37 1.40 1.39 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.40 1.41 Compost E-H C-F DEF B-E DEF B-E C-G A-E A-F A-D B-F A-E Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

18 Table ( 12 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf phosphorus(%) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

A-Specific effects of organic manure source, (O.M.) olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Organic manure source(O.M.) Olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) Biofertilization(Bio.) 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.26 C AB AB A C AB BC A B A A B A AB B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source C-Interaction between organic manure source(O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste (O.M.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic Organic o.o.w.w

Without 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 Without 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.22 Without 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.24 (O.M.) D CD E DE (O.M.) D BCD CD D A-D BCD (O.O.W.W.) C BC C BC Poultry 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.27 Poultry 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.26 25 L \ 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.28 manure BC B CDE AB manure CD A ABC A-D A AB tree BC A C A Sheep 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.26 Sheep 0.22 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.25 50 L \ 0.23 0.26 dung BCD BC CDE BC dung CD AB ABC CD ABC ABC 0.25 0.23 tree BC AB 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.26 AB C Compost Compost BC A BCD A CD A ABC BCD A ABC E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.22 Without (O.M.) F EF C-F A-D C-F C-F E B-E B-E A-E DE CDE 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.25 Poultry manure DEF DEF A-D A B-F A-E DE B-E AB A A-E A-E 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.24 0.25 Sheep dung DEF C-F A-D ABC A-F A-E DE B-E A-D AB B-E A-E 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.29 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.26 Compost C-F C-F A-D AB B-F A-E B-E B-E ABC A A-E A-E Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

19 Table (13 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf potassium content (%) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons. With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 0.85 0.96 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.86 0.97 1.07 1.10 1.01 1.03 Without (O.M.) I H GH FGH H FGH J I B-H A-E HI GHI 1.02 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.12 1.13 1.05 1.07 Poultry manure C-G A-F A-D A A-D A-D D-H C-H ABC A D-H C-H 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.10 1.12 1.04 1.04 Sheep dung E-H A-G A-D ABC A-G C-G FGH E-H A-D ABC FGH E-H 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.13 1.05 1.05 Compost B-G A-G A-D AB A-D A-E D-H D-H A-D AB D-H D-H

Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

20 Table (14): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf calcium content (%) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 2.51 2.67 2.61 2.79 2.54 2.68 2.63 2.81 2.60 2.67 2.66 2.62 2.69 2.68 2.60 2.68 2.62 2.70 D B C A D B C A B A A B A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste (O.M.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 2.47 2.55 2.51 2.58 Without 2.46 2.54 2.53 2.49 2.57 2.57 Without 2.56 2.65 2.58 2.67 (O.M.) G F G F (O.M.) F E E F E E (O.O.W.W.) C B D B Poultry 2.61 2.72 2.62 2.74 Poultry 2.64 2.75 2.68 2.66 2.77 2.68 25 L \ 2.63 2.70 2.66 2.73 manure E C E C manure CD D C D B CD tree B A BC A Sheep 2.57 2.64 2.59 2.67 2.56 2.63 2.63 2.65 2.66 2.57 Sheep dung dung F D F D E D D D D E 50 L \ 2.62 2.69 2.63 2.72 2.76 2.81 2.78 2.83 2.68 2.82 2.79 2.71 2.83 2.81 tree B A C A Compost Compost B A B A C A A C A A E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 2.41 2.50 2.51 2.57 2.49 2.56 2.44 2.53 2.54 2.59 2.53 2.60 Without (O.M.) I H GH F H FG J I I H I H 2.64 2.68 2.79 2.80 2.60 2.71 2.60 2.69 2.80 2.81 2.63 2.73 Poultry manure DE CD AB AB EF C H EF ABC AB GH DE 2.58 2.61 2.62 2.65 2.51 2.68 2.60 2.70 2.65 2.67 2.52 2.62 Sheep dung F EF EF DE GH CD H DEF FGH FG I GH 2.59 2.77 2.81 2.83 2.71 2.77 2.63 2.79 2.83 2.85 2.75 2.82 Compost EF B AB A C B GH BC AB A DC AB Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

21 Table ( 15 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf magnesium content (%) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons. O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic Without 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.16 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.41 (O.M.) A A A A A A I H GH C-G ABC AB Poultry 0.37 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.39 manure A A A A A A A-D C-G ABCD A-E ABC A-E 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.38 Sheep dung A A A A A A FGH D-H A-G B-G C-G A-F 0.30 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42 Compost A A A A A A E-H ABC ABC AB AB AB

Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

22 Table (16): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf iron content (ppm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 150.80 155.90 151.10 152.60 141.90 165.50 147.40 159.70 149.50 154.60 153.80 148.00 156.40 156.40 144.80 160.40 149.30 157.90 A A A A D A C B B A A B A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.)

Without 142.00 155.60 139.30 144.60 Without 139.10 146.60 143.80 137.40 145.80 142.50 Without 144.00 154.50 145.10 151.00 (O.M.) C B F E (O.M.) G E F G E F (O.O.W.W.) C B C B Poultry 147.20 164.50 163.50 169.30 Poultry 156.80 162.20 159.10 155.00 172.10 162.00 25 L \ 145.80 164.90 151.70 161.60 manure C A C A manure C A B C A B tree C A B A 143.40 159.60 144.40 150.40 Sheep 147.70 149.90 156.50 149.70 145.90 146.60 Sheep dung C AB E D dung E D C D E E 50 L \ 144.60 161.80 151.10 161.20 146.60 161.90 150.00 167.40 149.80 161.70 158.10 153.10 171.20 161.90 tree C A B A Compost Compost C AB D B D A BC C A B E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without With Without With Without Without With Without With Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 128.70 149.60 139.40 160.30 146.20 153.40 136.50 138.40 141.10 150.50 140.10 144.90 Without (O.M.) H EFG GH B-E FG C-F M LM KL FG L IJ 143.60 151.90 145.80 175.40 152.60 164.10 150.60 155.60 169.30 174.90 170.70 171.70 Poultry manure FG D-G FG A C-G A-D FG E C A C BC 140.00 147.50 149.00 147.40 144.40 167.60 143.90 148.00 144.20 147.60 145.10 155.50 Sheep dung FGH EFG EFG EFG FG AB JK GH J GHI HIJ E 148.50 165.20 148.90 171.80 150.50 170.70 148.20 161.90 152.20 171.60 149.50 174.50 Compost EFG ABC EFG AB EFG AB GH D F BC FG AB Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

23 Table (17 ): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on leaf zinc content (ppm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 33.24 49.89 33.85 42.24 36.40 52.01 36.92 44.80 37.25 41.64 40.52 40.44 44.22 42.9 35.20 44.41 38.60 46.46 C A C B C A C B B A A B A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste (O.M.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 2003 2004 Bio. Bio. Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic Organic Without 29.19 37.30 32.46 40.35 Without 30.91 30.15 38.67 34.05 33.60 41.57 Without 31.95 42.56 36.41 44.47 (O.M.) E D D BC (O.M.) F F DE F F DE (O.O.W.W.) D B D B Poultry 47.85 51.92 51.70 52.31 Poultry 45.24 52.98 51.44 49.97 53.61 52.44 25 L \ 36.23 45.87 39.08 48.12 manure B A A A manure B A A B A AB tree C A C A Sheep 27.57 40.13 31.32 42.52 29.85 36.04 35.66 32.56 39.15 39.06 Sheep dung dung E C D B F E E F E E 50 L \ 37.41 44.82 40.32 46.80 36.19 48.30 38.93 50.67 43.02 42.92 40.79 45.17 45.41 43.81 tree C AB C A Compost Compost D B C A BC BC CD C C CD E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 22.99 28.83 26.68 33.62 37.88 39.45 26.31 41.79 29.94 37.25 41.13 42.00 (O.M.) M F-I LM IJK F-J E-H J EF IJ FGH EF EF Poultry 41.85 48.62 52.94 54.12 48.76 53.03 49.19 50.75 51.69 55.52 50.38 54.50 manure EFG BC AB A BC AB BCD A-D ABC A A-D AB 26.32 33.39 28.76 44.44 27.64 42.55 30.62 40.50 30.87 47.43 32.48 45.64 Sheep dung LM JK KL CDE LM DEF IJ GHI IJ CD HI DE 36.65 47.33 37.66 48.18 34.25 49.38 37.28 50.34 39.99 50.83 39.51 50.83 Compost G-J CD F-J BC HIJ ABC FGH A-D F A-D FG A-D Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

24 Table ( 18 ) :Specific and Interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) on leaf manganese content (ppm) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without with Without with Compost Compost (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (ooww.) tree tree (o.o.w.w.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 43.35 59.98 50.63 52.31 50.05 61.29 52.60 54.91 50.40 52.97 51.33 51.85 56.24 56.05 47.43 55.70 51.57 57.86 C A B B B A B B B A B B A A B A B A B-Interaction between organic manure source C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste water (O.M.) and biofertilization (Bio.) water (O.O.W.W.) (OOWW) and biofertilization (Bio.) Bio 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio 2003 2004 Without with Without with Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without with Without with Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (o.o.w.w.) tree tree (o.o.w.w.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Without 39.26 47.43 46.97 53.13 Without 40.19 40.98 48.87 44.14 50.89 54.37 Without 44.57 54.92 47.01 56.69 (O.M.) E D D BC (O.M.) E E D E CD BCD (o.o.w.w.) C A D ABC Poultry 56.49 63.47 61.04 61.53 Poultry 57.49 61.40 61.04 58.81 61.55 63.50 25 L \ 49.99 56.24 54.63 59.41 manure B A A A manure B A A AB A A tree B A BC A Sheep 46.26 53.53 49.05 55.99 50.06 51.08 50.75 49.21 54.22 55.13 Sheep dung dung D C CD B CD CD CD DE BCD BCD 50 L \ 47.74 55.95 53.07 57.47 47.73 58.37 49.20 60.76 50.86 53.08 53.00 53.90 55.26 55.57 tree B A C AB Compost Compost D B CD A CD C C BCD BCD BC E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) , olive oil waste water (O.O.W.W.) and biofertilization (Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio Without Without Without Without Without Without with (Bio.) with (Bio.) with (Bio.) with (Bio.) with (Bio.) with (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) ( Bio) 33.09 48.87 36.78 45.40 44.32 43.60 36.41 49.71 50.20 55.95 47.38 52.07 Without (O.M.) L G-K L CDE K K I FGH FGH B-G GH D-H 51.95 63.03 58.65 63.94 58.86 63.43 58.20 60.93 61.76 65.25 59.68 63.43 Poultry manure F-I AB BCD A ABC AB A-F A-D ABC A A-E AB 46.48 53.63 47.72 49.83 47.91 54.36 43.85 54.57 50.98 57.83 52.44 57.46 Sheep dung JK D-G H-K F-IJ H-K C-F HI B-G E-H A-F D-H A-F 46.75 59.42 47.81 52.62 48.88 58.28 49.58 59.41 51.85 60.42 52.78 60.93 Compost IJK ABC H-K E-H G-K BCD FGH A-E D-H A-D B-F A-D Means having the same letter (s) within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.

25 Table (19): Specific and interaction effects of organic manure source (O.M.); olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) on total chlorophyll ( SPAD reading) of Sukkary mango trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.

A-Specific effects of organic manure source(O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Organic manure source(O.M.) Olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) Biofertilization(Bio.) 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 Without Poultry Sheep Without Poultry Sheep 25 L \ 50 L \ 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Compost Compost Without Without (O.M.) manure dung (O.M.) manure dung (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 43.56 47.68 44.89 47.62 44.27 46.67 45.67 45.76 44.68 47.19 45.95 45.00 46.09 45.28 45.13 46.75 45.21 45.70 A A A A B A AB AB A A A A A A A A A A B-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) C-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.) and olive oil waste D-Interaction between olive oil waste and Biofertilization(Bio.) water(O.O.W.W.) water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Bio. 2003 2004 o.o.w.w 2003 2004 Bio. 2003 2004 Without With Without With Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without 25 L \ 50 L \ Without With Without With Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) Organic (O.O.W.W.) tree tree (O.O.W.W.) tree tree o.o.w.w (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.)

Without 43.48 43.64 44.04 44.33 Without 42.58 44.77 43.33 42.93 45.08 44.62 Without 44.07 45.29 43.94 43.93 (O.M.) A A A A (O.M.) A A A A A A (O.O.W.W.) A A A A Poultry 46.40 49.17 46.09 47.41 Poultry 48.23 49.13 45.50 45.88 47.65 45.30 25 L \ 45.97 48.40 46.07 46.61 manure A A A A manure A A A A A A tree A A A A 44.56 45.23 44.49 45.43 45.83 48.57 44.05 45.30 46.10 44.78 Sheep dung Sheep dung A A A A A A A A A A 50 L \ 45.43 46.57 45.62 46.57 46.07 48.97 45.92 45.92 46.28 48.65 44.35 45.53 47.05 45.23 tree A A A A Compost Compost A A A A A A A A A A E-Interaction between organic manure source (O.M.), olive oil waste water(O.O.W.W.) and Biofertilization(Bio.) Seasons 2003 2004 O.O.W.W. Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Without (O.O.W.W.) 25 L \ tree 50 L \ tree Bio. Without Without Without Without Without Without With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) With (Bio.) Organic (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) (Bio.) 41.67 45.00 46.57 46.57 42.47 42.70 42.60 45.23 42.87 46.57 42.73 43.13 Without (O.M.) A A A A A A A A A A A A 46.47 47.60 48.80 51.05 43.43 44.83 45.40 46.37 47.03 49.83 44.27 45.03 Poultry manure A A A A A A A A A A A A 44.87 46.57 48.50 49.53 43.10 43.73 45.27 45.77 46.93 47.87 43.67 44.17 Sheep dung A A A A A A A A A A A A 46.10 47.20 48.57 49.90 42.97 45.57 45.27 46.00 46.93 48.73 44.03 44.27 Compost A A A A A A A A A A A A Means having the same letter (s) Within column or row are not significantly different at 5% level.