Irrigation Science

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 171–176 | Cite as

Long-term response of mature plum trees to salinity

  • P. B. Catlin
  • G. J. Hoffman
  • R. M. Mead
  • R. S. Johnson


Deciduous fruit trees are known to be salt sensitive but the degradation may be delayed for a number of years depending on salinity level and tree size. A field experiment was conducted in the San Joaquin Valley of California on mature plum trees. The objectives were to quantify salt tolerance with time and to document the development and impact of salt stress over a 6-year period. After three years, the salt tolerance threshold, measured as the electrical conductivity of saturated soil extracts, for fruit yield was 2.6 dS/m. At salinity levels in excess of the threshold, yield was reduced at the rate of 31% for each 1 dS/m increase in soil salinity. The continuation of this experiment for an additional three years did not alter the salt tolerance as measured by fruit yield. Attempts to revive trees that had been severely damaged by excess salinity were successful but recovery, depending on the severity of damage, requires several years.


Electrical Conductivity Water Pollution Salt Stress Field Experiment Salt Tolerance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernstein L, Brown JN, Hayward HE (1956) The influence of root-stock on growth and salt accumulation in stone-fruit trees and almonds. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 68:86Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein L (1980) Salt tolerance of fruit crops. USDA Agric Inf Bull 292Google Scholar
  3. Beutel J, Uriu K, Lilleland O (1978) Leaf analysis for California deciduous fruits. In: Reisenauer HM, (ed) Soil and plant-tissue testing in California, Univ Calif Div Agric Sci Bull 1879Google Scholar
  4. Davenport DC, Vaux HJ, Hagan RM (1983) Incidental effects of agricultural water conservation. Calif Agric 37:28Google Scholar
  5. Hoffman GJ, Catlin PB, Mead RM, Johnson RS, Francois LE, Goldhamer D (1989) Yield and foliar injury responses of mature plum trees to salinity. Irrig Sci 10:215Google Scholar
  6. Horsfall JG, Barratt RW (1945) An improved grading system for measuing plant diseases. Phytopathology 35:655Google Scholar
  7. James WC (1974) Assessment of plant diseases and losses. Ann Rev Phytopathology 12:27Google Scholar
  8. Lewis LN (1984) A vital resource in danger. Calif Agric 38:2Google Scholar
  9. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 103(IR2):115Google Scholar
  10. Muir CK (1986) Crop water use in California. Dep Water Res Bull 113-4, April 1986, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Phene CJ, Meek DN, Davis KR, McCormick RL, Hutmacher RB (1985) Real time crop evapotranspiration and determination of crop coefficients. Proc Nat'l Conf Adv Evapotranspiration, Chicago, Dec 1985, p 122Google Scholar
  12. van Genuchten MT, Hoffman GJ (1984) Analysis of crop salt tolerance data. In: Shainberg I, Shalhevet J (eds) Soil salinity under irrigation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (Ecological Studies, Vol 8), p 258Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. B. Catlin
    • 1
  • G. J. Hoffman
    • 2
  • R. M. Mead
    • 3
  • R. S. Johnson
    • 4
  1. 1.Pomology DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnUSA
  3. 3.USDA-ARS, Water Management Research LaboratoryFresnoUSA
  4. 4.Cooperative Extension, University of California, Kearney Agricultural CenterParlierUSA

Personalised recommendations