Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Fruit Crops: An Overview

Figures & data

Table 1. Nutrient removal pattern by major fruit crops

Fruit crops	Nutrients removal (kg/ha)
	N	P2O5	K2O	Yield (tons/ha)
Apple (Malus x domestica Borkh)	100.0	45.0	180.0	25.0
Avocado (Persea americana L.)	11.3	3.9	23.4	10.0
Banana (Musa acuminata L.)	250.0	60.0	1000.0	40.0
Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco)	3.4	0.37	3.72	1.0
Khasi mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco)	1.81	0.16	2.18	1.0
Coorg mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco)	3.04	0.27	3.31	1.0
Kinnow mandarin (C.nobilis T. x C. deliciosa L.)	2.40	0.57	2.35	1.0
Acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia Swingle)	1.22	0.21	4.06	1.0
Durian (Durio zibethinus L.)	16.1	6.6	33.5	6.7
Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)	170.0	60.0	220.0	20.0
Guava (Psidium guajava L.)	120.0	50.0	150.0	20.0
Ber (Ziziphus mauritiana L.)	80.0	35.0	125.0	20.0
Kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa Chev.)	165.0	50.0	273.0	40.0
Mango (Mangifera indica L.)	100.0	25.0	110.0	15.0
Papaya (Caria papaya L.)	90.0	25.0	130.0	50.0
Pecan (Carya illinoinensis W.)	9.7	5.3	5.4	1.2
Pistachio(Pistacia vera L.)	30.0	12.0	15.0	0.057
Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis F.)	60.0	15.0	75.0	15.0
Pineapple (Ananas comosus L.)	185.0	55.0	350.0	50.0
Sapota (Achras zapota L.)	130.0	50.0	170.0	80.0
Strawberry (Frageria ananassa D.)	200.0	100.0	900.0	0.75
Walnut (Jugulans regia L.)	37.9	10.7	21.2	2.7

Note: In case of citrus, figures are expressed as g/ton fruits.

Source: Tandon and Muralidharadu (2010), Chadha and Bhargava (1997), Kemmler and Hobt (1985), Chadha (2007), Sparks (1989)

Table 2. Agronomic response of microbial inoculation in different fruit crops

Sl no	Fruit crop	Experimental site and details	Microbes involved	Response parameters
1	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Calcereous soil of Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India	Azotobacter chroococcum- Glomus mosseae	Plant canopy, pruned material, rhizosphere changes and fruit yield
2	Grape (Vitis vinifera L.)	Black clay soil with alkaline pH, Maharashtra, India	Pseudomonas fluorescens	Root development
3	Quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.)	Province of Konya, Turkey; Used 10^9 cfu/ml suspension	Bacillus mycoides-B. subtilis	Fruit firmness, soluble dry matter and fruit yield
4	Navel orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck)	Silt clay soil (pH 8.9, salinity- 3.28 m mohs/cm), Delta Nile valley,	Pseudomonas fluorescens (843)- Azospirillum brasilense (W24)	Canopy volume and soil fertility
5	Apple (Malus domestica Borkh)	Acidic loam soil Horticulture Research and Extension Center, Almora, India	Pseudomonas striata- Azotobacter chroococcum Trichoderma viride -	Germination, root growth, and pest incidence
6	Peach (Prunus persica L. Stokes)	Calcareous sandy loam soil, Egypt	Azospirillum brasilense Bacillus megatarium	Plant height, girth and canopy growth
7	Peach (Prunus persica L. Stokes)	Acidic loam soil with high organic matter, H.P., India	Glomus fasciculatum – Azotobacter chroococcum	Plant height, girth and micronutrient concentration
8	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Hyperthermic typichaplocamborthid land, loamy sand (pH- 8.1; Sand- 84.1% AMF spore- 35/50 g soil) of CAZRI, Jodhpur, India	Azotobacter chroococcum- Glomus mosseae	Plant height, pruned material and fruit yield
9	Apple (Malus domestica Borkh	Clay loam soil of eastern Anatolia region of Turkey	Bacillus (OSU 142, M-3)- Pseudomonas (BA-8)	Tree growth and fruit yield
10	Mango (Mangifera indica L.)	Alkaline Sandy soil, Rajasthan, India	Azotobacter chroococcum	Seedling diameter and number of leaves
11	Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims.)	Experimented at departamento del Tolima (Colombia)	Azotobacter sp.- Azospirillum sp.-Trichoderma sp.	Improved plantlet growth and yield
12	Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck)	Acid red loam soil (Alfisol), India	Azospirillum brasilense- Glomus fasiculatum	Growth, fruit yield and nutrient uptake
13	Banana (Musa acuminata L.)	Acid red loam soil (Alfisol), Tamil Nadu, India	Azospirillium sp	Height and girth of pseudostem, leaf area and yield
14	Banana (Musa acuminata L.)	Acid red loam soil (Alfisol), West Bengal, India	Azotobacter chroococcum- Azospirillum brasilense	Number of fingers, bunch weight and leaf area
15	Banana, (Musa acuminata L.)	Acid red loam soil (Ultisol), Kerala, India	Azospirillum brasilense- Pseudomonas fluorescens	Fruit weight and finger size
16	Sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.)	Konya province, Turkey; foliar spraying of suspension @ 10^9 cfu/ml	Pseudomonas (BA-8)- Bacillus (OSU-142)	Growth, yield and leaf nutrient composition
17	Apple (Malus domestica Borkh.)	Malatya province, Turkey; Soil pH-7.45; root dipping of bacterial suspension	Bacillus (M3)- Bacillus(OSU-143)- Microbacterium	Growth, yield and plant nutrition
18	Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)	At province of Malatya, Turkey; foliar spraying of suspension @ 10^9 cfu/ml	Bacillus (OSU-142)	Shoot length, yield and leaf nutrient concentration
19	Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)	Karaman province, Turkey, foliar spraying of suspension at 10^9 cfu/ml	Bacillus (OSU-142)- Pseudomonas (BA-8)	Growth, yield and leaf nutrient composition
20	Nagpur mandarin, (Citrus reticulata Blanco)	Alkaline black clay soil rich in schemtite mineral of central India	Bacillus mycoides- B. polymyxa Trichoderma harzianum- Azotobacter chroococcum- Pseudomonas fluorescens	Shoot weight, root weight and rhizosphere microbial properties
21	Walnut (Juglans regia L.)	34 PSB isolated from 10 sites of Sichuan province, China	Pseudomonas chlororraphis- P. fluorescens- Bacillus cereus	Plant height, shoot and root dry
22	Papaya (Carica papaya L.)	Acidic Alfisol, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India	Glomus mosseae- G. fasciculatum- Gigaspora margarita	Growth and nutrient uptake

1. Mir and Sharma (2012), 2. Wange and Ranawade (1998), 3. Arikan et al. (2013), 4. Shamseldin et al. (2010), 5. Raman (2012), 6. Mahmoud and Mahmoud (1999), 7. Godara et al. (1996), 8. Aseri et al. (2008), 9. Aslantas et al. (2007), 10. Kerni and Gupta (1986), 11. Quiroga-Rojas et al. (2012), 12. Singh and Sharma (1993), 13. Jeeva et al. (1988), 14. Tiwari et al. (1999), 15. Suresh and Hasan (2001), 16. Esitken et al. (2006), 17. Karlidag et al. (2007), 18. Esitken et al. (2003), 19. Pirlak et al. (2007), 20. Srivastava et al. (2012), 21. Xuan et al. (2011), 22. Padma and Kandasamy (1990)

Table 3. Pre-evaluation response of rhizosphere hybridization in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck) buddlings raised on Rangpur lime (Citrus limonia Osbeck)

Treatments	Agronomic response		Response on soil physical properties		Response on soil fertility (Chemical properties)
	Height (cm)	Leaf area (cm^2)	Bulk density (mg/m^3)	Porosity (%)	Walkley-C (g/kg)	KMnO4-N (kg/ha)	Olsen-P (kg/ha)	NH4OAc-K (kg/ha)	DTPA- Zn (mg/kg)	Hot water soluble B (mg/kg)
T1, NRS	56.78	18.10	1.79	32.70	1.94	131.45	2.93	340.24	0.13	0.18
T2, NRSW	62.63	22.45	1.50	36.85	4.80	423.35	7.80	398.51	0.39	0.29
T3, PRS	88.03	33.14	1.30	47.10	17.83	973.39	21.07	1382.39	1.63	0.79
T4, BRS	110.00	42.51	1.24	48.80	18.58	1089.44	27.15	2061.47	4.13	0.98
T5, URS	119.52	45.66	1.18	52.55	23.09	1118.92	28.85	2213.87	6.04	1.10
T6, PRS +SRS	79.54	30.53	1.33	44.80	10.26	688.95	15.52	886.20	0.92	0.48
T7, BRS+SRS	84.96	32.89	1.29	47.37	11.34	746.94	17.44	1203.71	1.24	0.60
T8, URS+SRS	108.12	42.23	1.21	51.96	13.14	752.91	17.75	1259.66	3.15	0.64
T9, SRS	67.23	29.95	1.43	37.65	5.07	496.55	9.79	618.33	0.61	0.45
CD (P = .05)	9.03	3.13	0.10	2.42	1.19	37.87	1.06	100.60	0.15	0.03

NRS- Non rhizosphere soil from non-sweet orange growing orchard, NRSW- Non rhizosphere soil from sweet orange orchard, PRS- Pipal rhizosphere soil (Ficus religiosa L.), BRS- Banyan rhizosphere soil (Ficus benghalensis L.), URS- Umber rhizosphere soil (Ficus racemosa L.), SRS- Sweet orange rhizosphere soil

Source: Cheke et al. (2018a); (2018b))

Table 4. Various components of the integrated soil fertility management in fruit crops

Components	Executive operations
Cultivar	Cultivation of high yielding cultivars
	Cultivation of drought tolerant cultivars
	Cultivation of salinity tolerant cultivars
	Cultivation of cultivar having ability of sustained quality production under varying soil pH CaCO3
Chemical fertilizers	Development of multidimensional indicators in the interpretation of soil test results
	Application the right type of fertilizer in the right amount, at the right time and the right place called 4 R Nutrient Stewardship as ultimate premise of fertilizer use
Organic fertilizers	Application of different types of organic manures
	Cultivation of green manuring crops, preferably leguminous crops
	Application of compost and other organic
	Management of crop residues, preferably on-farm basis
Biofertilizers	Application of biostimulants for improved plant growth
	Inoculating with mycorrhizal fungi
	Inoculating with phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms
	Inoculating with non-symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria
	Inoculating with silicate solubilizers
	Inoculating with micronutrient solubilizers
	Use of microbial consortium
Cropping system	Conservation agriculture principles
	Cultivation of legumes in crop rotation
	High density intensive cultivation
	Fruit crop-based cropping system
Climatic and soil stresses	Suitable rootstock-scion compatible having high productive and tolerance to cold, heat, drought and salinity
	Creating better nutrient sink Rootstock scion combination with high net primary productivity
Social and economic considerations	Participatory research in public-private partnership mode
	Environmental appraisal in economic terms
	Economic analysis of research findings

Source: Moshiri et al. (2019a), Srivastava and Ngullie (2009)

Figure 1. Changes in organic carbon during 8 years of treatment with different organic manures in comparison to inorganic fertilizers in Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) (Source: Srivastava et al., 2012)

T₁- Farmyard manure, T₂- Vermicompost, T₃- Poultry manure, T₄- Neem cake, T₅- Green manure, T₆- Inorganic fertilizers

Table 5. Growth attributing parameters in response to different modules of ISFM in Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) (Pooled data: 2007–16)

ISFM modules	Canopy volume (m^3)	Yield (kg/tree)	Fruit quality parameter
			Juice content (%)	TSS (^°Brix)	Acidity (%)	TSS/ Acid ratio
Module I	13.04 (1.54)	67.7	40.2	8.4	0.96	8.92
Module II	18.51 (1.81)	71.0	39.6	8.6	0.93	9.23
Module III	20.28 (1.61)	80.5	41.5	9.5	0.86	10.05
Module IV	19.78 (1.62)	83.2	42.7	8.4	0.91	9.56
Module V	18.33 (1.40)	88.8	44.2	9.3	0.80	11.62
CD(P = .05)	1.18	2.1	2.1	0.30	0.10	1.10

- RDF stands for recommended doses of fertilizer (600 g N – 200 g P – 300 g K – 200 g ZnSO₄ – 200 g FeSO₄ – 200 g MnSO₄ tree/year)

- Vm stands for vermicompost (Nutrient composition: 2.38% N, 0.09% P, 1.42% K, 1072 ppm Fe, 116 ppm Mn, 39 ^{ppm Cu, and 46 ppm Zn)}

- MC stands for microbial consortium developed by isolating the native microbes as a (mixture of Bacillus pseudomycoides (MF113272), Acinetobacter radioresistens (MF113273), Micrococcus yunnanensis (MF113274), Paenibacillus alvei (MF113275) and Aspergillus flavus (MF113270)

- Figures in parenthesis indicates the value obtained in 2007–2008

Source: Srivastava et al. (2012)

Table 6. Changes in soil fertility status in response to different modules of ISFM-based treatments in Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) (Pooled data: 2007–16)

ISFM Module	Available nutrients (mg/kg)
	Macronutrients			DTPA-micronutrients				Soil carbon (g/kg)			Soil microbial load (x 10–3 cfu/g)
	KMnO4-N	Olsen-P	NH4OAc-K	Fe	Mn	Cu	Zn	SOC	SiC	TC	Bacterial Count	Fungal Count
Module I	140.0	9.32	185.2	10.35	10.54	2.2	0.98	6.61	1.71	8.32	26	12
Module II	1435	9.27	196.6	12.57	11.54	2.3	1.00	6.70	1.71	8.41	36	18
Module III	155.7	9.15	203.6	15.18	12.45	2.7	1.10	7.02	1.74	8.76	54	22
Module IV	161.0	9.57	209.2	16.56	11.67	2.8	1.18	7.11	1.75	8.86	44	26
Module V	178.5	9.55	212.6	19.50	12.93	2.5	1.32	7.43	1.81	9.24	86	42
CD(P = .05)	6.2	NS	1.3	1.32	1.01	NS	0.46	0.08	NS	0.09	8.2	4.8

-RDF stands for recommended doses of fertilizer (600 g N – 200 g P – 300 g K – 200 g ZnSO₄ – 200 g FeSO₄ – 200 g MnSO₄/tree/year)

-Vm stands for vermicompost (Nutrient composition: 2.38% N, 0.09% P, 1.42% K, 1072 ppm Fe, 116 ppm Mn, 39 ppm Cu, and 46 ppm Zn)

- MC stands for microbial consortium developed by isolating the native microbes (mixture of Bacillus pseudomycoides (MF113272), Acinetobacter radioresistens (MF113273), Micrococcus yunnanensis (MF113274), Paenibacillus alvei (MF113275) and Aspergillus flavus (MF113270)

Source: Srivastava et al., 2019, 2015b)

Table 7. Response of different INM-based treatments on profiles of enzymatic activity insoil and index leaves of Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) (Pooled data: 2007–16)

Treatments	Enzymatic profile
	Phophatase		Peroxidase (units/g) (EC: 1.11.1.7)	Succinate dehydrogenase (μ mol TTZ reduced/g)** (EC: 1.3.99.1)
	Acid (katals)* (EC: 3.1.3.2)	Alkaline (units/g) (EC: 3.1.3.1)
Rhizosphere
Module I	0.05	4444.44	65.14	0.21
Module II	0.04	977.16	166.66	0.38
Module III	0.03	4999.99	704.62	0.26
Module IV	0.11	752.31	230.08	0.59
Module V	0.16	6666.66	329.19	0.72
CD(P = .05)	NS	118.21	13.23	0.10
Endosphere
Module I	0.05	1888.88	2.76	91.66
Module II	0.04	4611.10	4.97	249.97
Module III	0.04	6861.11	9.99	358.33
Module IV	0.09	1277.77	3.59	227.77
Module V	0.16	4222.22	6.08	799.99
CD(P = .05)	0.02	122.40	0.80	42.64

- RDF stands for recommended doses of fertilizer (600 g N – 200 g P – 300 g K – 200 g ZnSO₄ – 200 g FeSO₄ – 200 g MnSO₄ tree/year)

- Vm stands for vermicompost (Nutrient composition: 2.38% N, 0.09% P, 1.42% K, 1072 ppm Fe, 116 ppm Mn, 39 ^{ppm Cu, and 46 ppm Zn)}

- MC stands for microbial consortium developed by isolating the native microbes as a (mixture of Bacillus pseudomycoides (MF113272), Acinetobacter radioresistens (MF113273), Micrococcus yunnanensis (MF113274), Paenibacillus alvei (MF113275) and Aspergillus flavus (MF113270)

*1 katal is the amount of enzyme that hydrolyses 1 mole of paranitrophenylphosphatase (PNPP)/sec under assay conditions

**Expressed as value obtained micromole of triphenyltertrazolium chloride (TTZ) reduced per mg of soil (30% extract soil sample in water)

Source: Srivastava et al. (2019)

Table 8. Different modules of INM/ISFM recommended for important fruit crops

Crop	Nutrient-microbe combination	Reference
Aonla (Emblicaofficinalis Gaertn.)	50% NPKS (105 kg N – 7.20 kg P2O5 – 125.25 kg K2O/ha) – Biofertilizers (Azotobacter sp- Azospirillum sp- Phosphate solubilizing bacteria) – FYM (2 tons/ha)	Yadav et al. (2007)
Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)	75% RDF – 25% FYM	Shah et al. (2006)
Banana (Musa acuminata L.)	FYM 12 kg/plant – Azospirillum sp 50 g/plant- Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria 50 g/plant T. harzianum 50 g/plant	Hazarika and Ansari (2010)
Guava (Psidium guajava L.)	50% RDF (225 g N – 195 g P2O5 – 150 g K2O/plant)- FYM 50 kg/plant – Azospirillum 250 g/plant	Goswami et al. (2012)
Lemon (Citrus limon L. Osbeck.)	N 525 g/plant – FYM 15 kg/plant – Azotobacter sp 18 g/plant	Khehra and Bal (2014)
Litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.)	500 g N- 250 g P2O5- 500 g K2O/plant- FYM 50 kg/plant- Azotobacter sp 150 g/plant- VAM 100 g/plant	Dutta et al. (2010)
Mango (Mangifera indica L.)	250 N- 425 P2O5- 1000 K2O- Azospirillum sp 250 g/plant- PSB 250 g/plant- ZnSO4 100 g/plant- Borax 100 g/plant	Hasan et al. (2012)
Mosambi (Citrus sinensis Osbeck)	300 g N- 250 g P2O5- 300 g K2O- AMF 10 g/plant- Azospirillum sp 25 g/plant	Patel et al. (2009)
Papaya (Caria papaya L.)	Vermicompost 20 kg/plant- rhizosphere culture 50 g/plant- 150 N- 200 P2O5- 200 K2O g/plant (75% RDF)	Kirad et al. (2010)
Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	400 g N- 100 g P2O5- 300 g K2O/plant- FYM 20 kg/plant	Ghosh et al. (2012)

−RDF and PSB stand for recommended doses of fertilizers and phosphate solubilizing bacteria predominantly, Pseudomonasfluorescens, respectively

−FYM and AMF stand for farmyard manure and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, respectively

Figure 2. Reduction in CO₂ emission rate (mg C/m²/hr) in response to different ISFM modules in citrus

Source: Srivastava et al. (2019)

Table 9. Response of different components of ISFM in fruit crops grown in China

Sr No	Nutrient dose	Response	Reference
	Pummelo (Citrus maxima Merr.) var. Longanyou
1	450 kg N- 247.5 kg P2O5- 438 kg K2O along with 2.25 tons/ha organic manure	Increase in fruit yield (95.40 kg/plant) along with plant available nutrients and leaf nutrient composition.	Li et al. (2017)
	Banana (Musa acuminate L.)
2	Bio-organic fertilizers having C:N ratio of 8.7:1	Decline in Fusarium wilt disease, increase in yield coupled with quality, improvement in soil fertility, increase in bacterial and actinomycetes population with lower fungi counts along with increased Bacillus diversity.	Shen et al. (2013), Tao et al. (2020)
	Macademia nut (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche)
3	73 g N- 103 g P2O5- 24 g K2O/plant/year	Increase in yield by 5 kg/plant.	Zhao et al. (2019)
	Apple (Malus x domestica Borkh)
4	165 kg N- 110 kg P2O5- 120 kg K2O + 27.5 tons/ha cattle manure	Increased yield with A-grade fruit percentage, increase in quality parameters (sugar: acid, TSS, firmness, vitamin C) and increase in total organic carbon content and soil fertility	Zhao et al. (2014)
5	11250 kg/ha bioorganic fertilizer (281 N – 225 P2O5- 169 K2O – 1631organic C kg/ha- functional microorganisms (5 × 10^7/g), and 1800 kg/ha of organic-inorganic mixed fertilizer (180 N- 126 P2O5- 144K2O- 209 organic C kg/ha)	Increase in yield, catalase and invertase activity, soil organic matter, plant available N, P, and K content of soil, relative abundance of bio-control bacteria (Xanthomonadales, Lysobacter, Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Ohtaekwangia, Ilyonectria, and Lecanicillium), and decline in population of Acidobacteria, Chloroflexi, Gp4, Gp6, and Sphaerobacter.	Wang et al. (2016b)
	Walnut (Juglans regia Dode)
6	Rock Phosphate (7% total P- 0.023 water soluble P- 0.15 mg/g P soluble in 0.5 M NaHCO3) + Mixture of biofertilizers (P. aurantiaca + P. fluorescens + B. cereus)	Increase in agronomic performance of walnut seedling, supported by increased total nutrient uptake and availability of P along with increase in bacterial diversity (heterotrophic bacteria and PSB), soil enzymatic activity, photosynthetic rate, respiration rate, and water-use-efficiency.	Yu et al. (2014)

Table 10. Some published works on integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition (IMSFPN) on Iranian fruit crops

Fruit crops	Objectives	Response parameters	Reference
Olive (Olea europaea L.)	Influence of IMSFPN in olive orchards	Increase in fertilizer-use-efficiency, yield, and quality production.	Taheri et al. (2017)
Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)	Influence of IMSFPN in pistachio orchards	Increase in fertilizer-use-efficiency, and yield.	Hosseinifard et al. (2017)
Citrus (Citrus reticulata Blanco)	Influence of IMSFPN on northern and southern citrus orchards	Improvement in yield and quality of fruits, salinity tolerance, and fertilizer-use-efficiency.	Asadi Kangarshahi et al. (2017)
Date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.)	Influence of IMSFPN in date palm	Improvement in growth, yield (especially under low soil fertility condition and salinity condition), and fertilizer- and water-use-efficiency	Hosseini et al. (2017)
Grape (Vitis vinifera L.)	Influence of IMSFPN in grape orchards	Increase in yield and yield components, salinity tolerance, water- and fertilizer-use-efficiency	Mostashari et al. (2016)

Tandon, H.L.S., and Y. Muralidharadu. 2010. Nutrient uptake, removal and recycling by crops. Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization. New Delhi, India. p.1–140.

 Google Scholar

Chadha, K.L., and B.S. Bhargava. 1997. Plant nutrient supply, needs, efficiency and policy issues for fruit crops in Indian agriculture from 2000 to 2025 AD, p. 114–132. In: J.S. Kanwar and J.C. Katyal, (eds.). Plant nutrient needs, supply, efficiency and policy issues:2000-2025 National academy of agricultural sciences. New Delhi, India.

 Google Scholar

Kemmler, G., and H. Hobt. 1985. Potassium a product of nature. Kali and Salz, Kassel, Federal Republic of Germany. pp. 1–108.

 Google Scholar

Chadha, K.L. 2007. Handbook of Horticulture (Ed). Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR): New Delhi, India, 1–1031.

 Google Scholar

Sparks, D. 1989. Pecan nutrition - a review. Proc. South-eastern Pecan Growers Association 82:101–122.

 Google Scholar

Mir, M., and S.D. Sharma. 2012. Influence of biofertilizers on plant growth, fruit yield, nutrition and rhizosphere microbial activity of pomegranate (Puica granatum L.) cv. Kandhari Kasali. J. App. Hort 14:129–136.

 Google Scholar

Wange, S.S., and D.B. Ranawade. 1998. Effect of microbial inoculants on fresh root development on grape var. Kishmis Chorni. Recent Hort 4:27–31.

 Google Scholar

Arikan, S., M. Ipek, and L. Pirlak. 2013. Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield and fruit quality of Quince. Int. Conf. Agri. Biotech. 60:97–106.

 Google Scholar

Shamseldin, A., H. El-Sheikh Mohamad, H.S.A. Hassan, and S.S. Kabeil. 2010. Microbial biofertilization approaches to improve yield and quality of Washington navel orange and reducing the survival of nematode in the soil. J. Amer. Sci. 6:264–271.

 Google Scholar

Raman, J. 2012. Response of Azotobacter, Pseudomonas, and Trichoderma on growth of apple seedling. Inter. Proc. Chem. Biol. Environ. Eng. 40:3–90.

 Google Scholar

Mahmoud, H.M., and F.A.F. Mahmoud. 1999. Studies on effect of some biofertilizers on growth of peach seedlings and root rot disease incidence. Egyptian J. Hort. 26:7–18.

 Google Scholar

Godara, R.K., R.P. Awasthi, and N.S. Kaith. 1996. Interaction effect of VA-mycorrhizae and Azotobacter inoculation on micronutrient content of peach seedlings. J. Hill Res. 9:5–10.

 Google Scholar

Aseri, G.K., N. Jain, J. Panwar, A.V. Rao, and P.R. Meghwal. 2008. Biofertilizers improve plant growth, fruit yield, nutrition, metabolism and rhizosphere enzyme activities of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in Indian Thar desert. Sci. Hort 117:130–135.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aslantas, R., R. Cakmakci, and F. Sahin. 2007. Effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on young apple tree growth and fruit yield under orchard conditions. Sci. Hort. 111:371–377.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kerni, P.N., and A. Gupta. 1986. Growth parameters affected by azotobacterization of mango seedlings in comparison to different nitrogen doses. Res. Dev. Rep. 3:77–79.

 Google Scholar

Quiroga-Rojas, L.I., N. Ruiz-Quinones, G. Munoz-Motta, and M.D. Lozano-Tovar. 2012. Rhizosphere microorganism, potential antagonists of Fusarium sp. causing agent of root rot in passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims). Acta Agron. 61:244–250.

 Google Scholar

Singh, C., and B.B. Sharma. 1993. Leaf nutrient composition of sweet orange as affected by combined use of bio-and chemical fertilizers. South Indian Hort 41:131–134.

 Google Scholar

Jeeva, S., M. Kulasekaran, K.G. Shanmugavelu, and G. Oblisami. 1988. Effect of Azospirillum on growth and development of banana cv. Poovan (AAB). South Indian Hort 36:1–4.

 Google Scholar

Tiwari, D.K., M.A. Hasan, and P.K. Chattopadhyay. 1999. Leaf nutrient and chlorophyll content in banana (Musa AAA) under influence of Azotobacter and Azospirillum inoculation. Environ. Ecol. 17:346–350.

 Google Scholar

Suresh, C.P., and M.A. Hasan. 2001. Studies on the response of Dwarf Cavendish banana (Musa AAA) to biofertilizer inoculation. Hort. Journal. 14:35–41.

 Google Scholar

Esitken, A., L. Pirlak, M. Turan, and F. Sahin. 2006. Effect of floral and foliar application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth and nutrition of sweet cherry. Sci. Hort. 110:324–327.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karlidag, H., A. Esitken, M. Turan, and F. Sahin. 2007. Effects of root inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on yield, growth, and nutrient element contents of leaves of apple. Sci. Hort. 114:16–20.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Esitken, A., H. Karlidag, S. Ercisli, M. Turan, and F. Sahin. 2003. The effect of spray a growth promoting bacterium on the yield, growth, and nutrient element composition of leaves of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L. cv. Hacihaliloglu). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 54:377–380.

 Google Scholar

Pirlak, L., M. Turan, F. Sahin, and A. Esitken. 2007. Floral and foliar application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) to apples increases yield, growth and nutrient element contents of leaves. J. Sust. Agri. 30:145–155.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Srivastava, A.K., S. Singh, and A.D. Huchche. 2012. Evaluation of INM in citrus (Citrus reticulata Blanco): Biometric response, soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. Inter. J. Innov. Hort 1(2):126–134.

 Google Scholar

Xuan, Y., X. Liu, T.H. Zhu, G.H. Liu, and C. Mao. 2011. Isolation and characterization of phosphate solubilising bacteria from walnut and their effect on growth and phosphorous mobilization. Biol. Fert. Soils. 47:437–446.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Padma, T.M.R., and D. Kandasamy. 1990. Effect of interaction between VA-mycorrhizae and graded levels of phosphorous on the growth of papaya (Carica papaya). In: Proc. Natl. Conf. Trends in Mycorrhizal Res, 14-16 February, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India, pp. 133–134.

 Google Scholar

Cheke, A.S., V.D. Patil, H.K. Kausadikar, and A.K. Srivastava. 2018a. Rhizosphere hybridization: Soil nutrient availability. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem SP1:3113–3117.

 Google Scholar

Cheke, A.S., V.D. Patil, and A.K. Srivastava. 2018b. Studies on rhizosphere hybridization and nutrient dynamics in sweet orange seedling from pot culture experiment. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. SP1:3077–3082.

 Google Scholar

Moshiri, F., M.R. Balali, and F. Rejali. 2019a. A framework for integrated soil fertility and plant nutrition management in Iran. 16th Iranian Soil Science Congress, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran. pp. 42–50.

 Google Scholar

Srivastava, A.K., and E. Ngullie. 2009. Integrated nutrient management: Theory and practice. Dyn. Soil, Dyn. Plant 3(1):1–30.

 Google Scholar

Srivastava, A.K., D.H. Paithankar, K.T. Venkataramana, B. Hazarika, and P. Patil. 2019. INM in fruit crops sustainable quality production and soil health. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 89(3):379–395.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Srivastava, A.K., S. Singh, and A.D. Huchche. 2015b. Evaluation of INM in citrus on Vertic Ustochrept: biometric response and soil health. J. Plant Nutr. 38(5):1–15.

 Google Scholar

Yadav, R., B.H. Singh, H.K. Singh, and A.L. Yadav. 2007. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and quality of aonla (Emblica officinalis Gaetm.) fruits. Plant Arch 1&2:881–883.

 Google Scholar

Shah, M.S., M. Wisal, S. Azam, and N. Haq. 2006. Integrated nitrogen management of young deciduous apricot orchard. Soil Environ 25:59–63.

 Google Scholar

Hazarika, B.N., and S. Ansari. 2010. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of banana cv. Jahaji. Indian J. Hort. 67:270–273.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goswami, A.K., S. Lal, and K.K. Misra. 2012. Integrated nutrient management improves growth and leaf nutrient status of guava cv. Pant Prabhat. Indian J. Hort 69(2):168–172.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khehra, S., and J.S. Bal. 2014. Influence of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on growth of lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm.) cv. Baramasi. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci 2:126–129.

 Google Scholar

Dutta, P., S. Kundu, and S. Biswas. 2010. Integrated nutrient management in litchi cv Bombai in new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Ind. J. Hort. 67:181–184.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hasan, M.A., M. Manna, P. Dutta, K. Bhattacharya, S. Mandal, H. Banerjee, S.K. Ray, and S. Jha. 2012. Integrated nutrient management in improving fruit quality of Mango ‘Himsagar’. IX International Mango Symposium, ISHS Acta Hort. 992: 167–172. Sanya, Hainan Island, China.

 Google Scholar

Patel, V.B., S.K. Singh, A. Ram, N. Lata, A.K. Singh, and L. Singh. 2009. Microbial and inorganic fertilizers application influenced vegetative growth, yield, leaf nutrient status and soil microbial biomass in sweet orange cv Mosambi. Indian J. Hort. 66:163–168.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kirad, K.S., S. Barche, and D.B. Singh. 2010. Integrated nutrient management in papaya cv. Surya. Acta Hort. 1:377–380.

 Google Scholar

Ghosh, S.N., S.N. Roy, and B. Bora. 2012. Nitrogen and potassium nutrition in sapota grown in laterite soil. J. Crop Weed. 8:152–154.

 Google Scholar

Li, R.F., Y.D. Chang, T. Hu, X.Y. Jiang, G.L. Liang, Z.M. Lu, Y.W. Yi, and Q.G. Guo. 2017. Effects of different fertilization treatments on soil, leaf nutrient and fruit quality of Citrus grandis var. Longanyou. World J. Eng. Tech 5:1–14.

 Google Scholar

Shen, Z., S. Zhong, Y. Wang, B. Wang, X. Mei, R. Li, Y. Ruan, and Q. Shen. 2013. Induced soil microbial suppression of banana fusarium wilt disease using compost and biofertilizers to improve yield and quality. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 57:1–8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tao, C., R. Li, W. Xiong, Z. Shen, S. Liu, B. Wang, Y. Ruan, S. Geisen, Q. Shen, and G.A. Kowalchuk. 2020. Bio-organic fertilizers stimulate indigenous soil Pseudomonas populations to enhance plant disease suppression. Microbiome 8:137.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, X., Q. Dong, S.B. Ni, X.Y. He, H. Yue, L. Tao, Y. Nie, C.S. Tang, F.Q. Zhang, and J. Shen. 2019. Rhizosphere processes and nutrient management for improving nutrient-use efficiency in macadamia production. Hort. Sci. 54:603–608.

 Google Scholar

Zhao, Z.P., S. Yan, F. Liu, P.H. Ji, X.Y. Wang, and Y.A. Tong. 2014. Effects of chemical fertilizer combined with organic manure on Fuji apple quality, yield and soil fertility in apple orchard on the Loess Plateau of China. Int. J. Agri. & Biol. Eng 7(2):45–55.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, L., F.E.Y. Yang, J. Yuan, W. Raza, Q. Huang, and Q. Shen. 2016b. Long-term application of bioorganic fertilizers improved soil biochemical properties and microbial communities of an apple orchard soil. Front. Microbiol 7:1893.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yu, X., X. Liu, and T.H. Zhu. 2014. Walnut growth and soil quality after inoculating soil containing rock phosphate with phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. Science Asia 40:21–27.

 Google Scholar

Taheri, M., M. Basirat, T. Khoshzaman, M. Mostashari, and M.A. Shakeri. 2017. Instruction of integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition in olive orchards. Final Report, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran (ISBN: 978-600-95168-8-9), pp. 1–105.

 Google Scholar

Hosseini Fard, S.J., M. Basirat, N. Sedaghati, and A. Akhyani. 2017. Integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition in pistachio trees. Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran, (ISBN: 9786009516865) pp. 1–101.

 Google Scholar

Asadi Kangarshahi, A., M. Basirat, N. Akhlaghi Amiri, H. Haghighatnia, A. Sheikh Ashkvari, S. Salimpour, A. Sabah, M. Shahabian, J. Saleh, O. Ghasemi, et al. 2017. Integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition in northern and southern citrus of Iran. Soil and Water Research Institute, Karaj, Iran 1–93. (ISBN: 978-600-98070-0-0)

 Google Scholar

Hosseini, Y., A.H. Mohebi, M. Puzesh Nejad Shirazi, M. Basirat, and F. Rejali. 2017. Integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition of date palm. Soil and Water Research Institute, Karaj, Iran, (ISBN: 9786009516872) pp. 1–68.

 Google Scholar

Mostashari, M., A. Khosravinejad, A. Baybordi, M. Basirat, A. Akhyani, M.H. Sedri, and A. Majidi. 2016. Integrated management of soil fertility and plant nutrition of grape trees. Final Report, Publications of Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran, pp. 1–33.

 Google Scholar