Agric. Rev., 23 (2) : 93 - 109, 2002

CITRUS ROOTSTOCKS SCENARIO WITHSPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIA - A REVIEW

R.K. Sonkar, A.D. Huchche, Lallan Ram and Shyam Singh

National Research Centre for Citrus,Nagpur - 440 010, India

ABSTRACTTrials conducted in various parts of the country and abroad provided detailed information on

usefulness of different rootstocks for citrus fruits which varies greatly with scion variety and agro­climatic conditions. Citrus plants are unusual in that many species and cultivars, including thecommercial rootstocks, reproduce true to type from seed. Commercial citrus rootstock cultivarsare highly polyembryonic but there can be 1-40 zygotic seedlings in the seed bed. Inspite ofsusceptibility to various phytophthora diseases and restricted longevity, rough lemon has been themost time tested and widely used rootstock in India. However, attempts to develop better substi­tute rootstock have shown Cleopatra mandarin (Citrus reshnl) , Rangpur lime (Citrus limonia),pectinifera (Citros pectinifera). Some of the citranges and Alemow (Citros macrophyUa) are foundto be promising rootstocks in certain parts of the country.

Citrus rootstocks have varied effectson scion vigour and size, fruit yield and qualityand tolerance to various biotic and abioticstresses. These also differ in their adaptabilityto various soils and micorrhizal dependency(Castle,1987; Ford, 1959; Nemec, 1978).Horticultural performance of dtrus scion culti­vars is affected by rootstocks 'in several waysviz. (i) Precocity in bearing (ii) Uniform tree size(iii) Cropping and fruit quality control (iv) Tol­erance to unfavourable soil factors such as sa­linity, high pH and poor drainage and (v) Tol­erance to Phytophthora, parasitic nematodesand viruses (Wutscher, 1979).

Budding or grafting of citrus wa~ com­mon standard practice in the 16th and 17tr cen­turies. Phytophthora foot rot disease, whichwas first observed in the Azores in 18th am­tury and forced European growers to bud ,onresistant rootstocks (Chapot, 1975). The per­formance/adaptability of citrus rootstocks Vflr­ies greatly with scion variety and agro-climancconditions. Therefore, it is of utmost impvr­tance to select the best performing rootstq:Kfor a given variety in a given region to att{JJnmaximum productivity and quality. Sevetalrootstock trials of citrus have been condUCTedin India since 1920 using mandarins, sw~et

oranges, acid lime, lemon, grapefruit andpummelo as scion variety. Horticultural char­acteristics of rootstocks are important, espe­cially their influence on yield and fruit quality,but disease resistance became a key aspect ofrootstock development since 50 years ago(Fawcett 1934; Wutscher, 1977). The earlytrials usually compared only sour orange, roughlemon, trifoliate orange, arid sometimesCleopatra mandarin or grapefruit for suitabil­ity in particular area (Wutscher, 1979). In In­dia citrus rootstock situation was reviewed byChadha et aJ. (1970) and Agrawal (1982).Chadha and Singh (1990) summerised the in­formation on the basis of horticultural perfor­mance of the rootstocks to the stress (Table 1).The information on the rootstocks used in dif­ferent parts of India is compiled in Table 2.This review attempts to compile the work donein India and abroad with regards to relation­ship between various rootstock and scion cul­tivars by the turn of 21 5t century.

Rootstock effect on polyembryony of seedsCitrus is unusual in that many species

and cultivars, including the commercialrootstocks, reproduce true to type from seed.The seeds are polyembryonic, the extraembryos arising apomictically by nucellar

94 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Table 1. Characteristics of some sel~cted -rootstocks (Chadh~ and Singh, 1990)

RootstocKs Horticultural performance Reaction to the stresses

Biotic Stress Abiotic

Yield Quality Plant Root Root Exocortis Tristeza Nematode Salt Droughtvigour system rot

Cleopatra mandarin M M M M T R R S HT DCarnio citrange M G M SH MT S MT T HS HSSour orange G G M D R T HS T T MTKharna Khatta G M M D S T MT T SMarmalade orange G M G D MT S R MT R RNasnaran M G M M S R T MT HT SRangpur Lime G M G D MT S R S R RRough lemon

,G L G D S R R S T T

Sweet lime M M G M S S S MT S SSweet orange G G M M HS R MT HS S STrifoliate orange L M L D R H R R HS HSTroyer citrange M G M SH MT S MT T HS HS

G= 'Good, M = Moderate, L = Low, R = Resistant, T = Tolerant, MT = Moderately tolerant, .S = Susceptible, D = Deep, M = Medium, SJ-j = Shallow. - = ,No information.

Table 2. Properties of some rootstocks (Samson, 1986)

Rootstocks,

Root rot Tris~za Exocortis Nematode Drought Production Qualityand Salt

Sour orange 4 0 4 2 2 2 4Sweet orange 1 4 3 2 2 3 4Rough lemon 0 3 3 1 2 4 1Milam lemon 0 4 3 3 2 3 2Cleopatra mandarin 2 4 0 2 4 4 3Rangpur lime 2 4 0 2 4 4 3Sweet lime 3 2 1 1 2 2 2Troyer citrange 3 4. 1 3 1 3 4P trifoliah!- 4 4 0 4 0 2 4,

Scale: 0 = Very bad, 1 = Bad, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Good, 4 = Very good

embry.ony. Some citrus types aremonoembryonic. They are usually eliminatedas potential rootstocks because they produceonly zygotic seedlings, ~hich are highly vari-

. able (Castle, 1987). Commercial citrus root­stock cultivars are highly polyembryonic, butthere can be, depending on the cultivars, from1 to 40 % zygotic seedlings in the seedbed(Wutscher, 1979). Seed source should be care­fully selected for being true to type and virusfree, because seed transmission of psorosis vi­rus is possible (Bridges et aJ., 1965 andNewcomb, 1977). The polyembryonic seedshave one extra, embryo arising apomictically

from the nuceIIus. The extent of nuceIIarembryony ranges among rootstocks from 100%, where virtually all plants in a stand of seed­lings are..of nucellar origin to less than 50%(Castle 1987). Jambhiri, Italian-76 andRangpur lime produced 91,98 and 82 per centnucellar seedlings respectively.

MotHal (1963) observed that the num­ber of embryos per seed was 4.7 in Jambhiri(Citrus jambhirj Lush), 4.45 in Italian lemonand in Galgal (Hill lemon, Citrus pseudolimonTanaka) with a range of 1 to 11 in citrus spe­cies. Galgal (Citrus pseudolimon, Tanaka) qndSadaphal (Citrus semperOorenSi had 90 and

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 95

95 per cent polyembryonic seeds, respectively. nucellar sweet orange cv. mosambi was high­Singh (1964) reported that Jambhiri (Citrus est on Rangpur lime (95 %) followed byjambhirl Lush) had maximum number of em- Poncirus trifoliata (90 %), lemon (Citrus limon,bryos (4.7) followed by sweet lime (Citrus Burm) and rqugh lemon (88%) and lowest onlimettioides Tanaka), Kharna khatta (Citrus Cleopatra mandarin (40%). Ganpathy et al

. kama Raff), Hill lemon (Citrus pseudolimon (1985) reported that pinched seedlings of PTanaka) with minimum in sour lime (1.35). trifoliata and Rangpur lime gave higher bud­Prasad and Ravishankar (1982) reported that take of Coorg mandar:in. Shinde et al. (1997)citrumelo, Cleopatra mandann, Pomeroy tri- reported the bud-take was highest on C.foliate and rough lemon could be ideal macrophylla, rough lemon, Chethalli and Ca­rootstocks for obtaining high proportions of' l~mondinrootstock while it was lowest on wood

. nucellar seedlings by virtue oftheir higher seed apple and Carrizo citrange rootstocks.number per fruit. Sharma (1982) observed Gongales and Figusroa, (1994) reported thathighest polyembryony in Jatti khatti (rough Cleopatra mandarin, a sour orange x grape­lemon) (46.9 %) followed by Cleopatra man- fruit hybrid, R. angpur lime (Citrus limonia) anddarin(C reshniTanaka)(37.98%), Pectinifera Troyer citranges were grown from seed and.(C pectinifera) (29.66 %) and Kharna khatta evaluated as rootstock for Orlando tangelo %(C kama Raf) (10.5 %) , Savage citrange (1.1.3 graft success was greatest (100%) with%), Carrizo citrange (11.1 %) and Rangpur h~e Cleopatra mandarin rootstocks, followed by(6.9 %) at different stages of fru,lt matunty. Sour orange and Grapefruit (90%).Prasad and Ravishankar (1983) claimed 100per cent polyembryony in Rusk citrange and Incompatibilitytrifoliate orange and 93.3 % in Swingle The rootstock/sc~oncombination thatcitrumelo, 86.6 % in Troyer citrange, 73.3 % did not prod~ce ~ealthy, Vlgor~us trees ~nd ledCarrizo citrange and there was no relationship to early. d.e.chne IS termed as mco~pattble I~-.

between percentage polyembryony and seed compattblhty m?y be due tp genettc or physI-hi' ological incongeniality between stock and

morp oogy. scion. Naik (1948) observed the incompatibil-Rootstock effects on bud take .\ ity of acid lime with Gajanimma rootstock

Mukharjee and Singhp966) obse~~ where only 22.22% of trees had smooth budthat October was the best tIme. for ~uddm~ joints as compared to 72.22% in acid lime andPineapple, Sweet orange on CItrus J~mbhil:J" 61.11% in Jambhiri. Incompatibility of Kagziunder Delhi condition Bud-take, sproutmg and Ijme on C Kama and Poncirus trifoliata(Singhbud survival of 0 sinensis .and C reticulataon ,1961). Carrizo citrange, C-32, C-35 andC kama was hIghest dunng Febru.ary under ::::leopatra mandarin showed incompatibilityUdaipur conditions (Sen and Kapa~ta, 1984). (Lallan Ram et aI, 1999). The highest incom­Dhillon (1966) reported that buddmg .success patibility ratio on Kharna khatta and lowest onrootstock varies to rootstocks. In Punjab, the, Rubidoux were observed with Kinnow manda­bud-take of Kinnow on C jambhiriwas 98 per, rin (Dhillon et al., 1993). Incompatibility ofcent with better subsequent growth when round rootstock and scion has been reported inbuds without wood were used than by using Nagpur mandarin over Kandhia local of Karunangular buds with or without wood (Sharma (identical to Kichilli) in Orissa (Anonymous,and Sharma, 1986). 1960) and in Khasi mandarin over C. kama

Mandge and Chakrawar (1981) re- in Assam (Nandi et aI, 1943). Singh et alported that bud-take of Nagpur mandarin and (1978) reported that trees of Kinnow manda-

96 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

rin had lowest mortality on Troyer citrange of feeder roots was equal in both the rootstocks.whereas symptoms of bark splitting were Both rough lemon and Rangpur lime whichprominent on trifoliate orange and Carrizo are popular rootstocks in orange growing incitrange. Rough lemon, Rangpur lime, Vidarbha region had less spreading root sys­Cleopatra mandarin and sour orange exhibited tern as compared to Coorg and Cleopatra man­smooth bud union and formed congenial stionic darin and latter rootstocks may substitute thecombination (Lallan Ram et al., 1999). present rootstock in times of water scarcity.

The incompatibility was reported in Tayde et al. (1985) stated that thethe combination of Blood Red over rough Jambhiri had the longest primary roots followedlemon and citron in Punjab (Bakshi and Dhillon, by sour orange and Nasnaran (c. amblycarpa)1961; Singh and Singh, 1944). Mosambi on had the shortest primary roots. Mishra et al.Jatti khatti, Troyer and Carrizo citrange, (1999) reported that most of the feeder rootsRangpur lime, citrumelo, pectinifera and were confined to the surface layer (0-20 em)Jamberi showed poor compatibility as plants of soil and at closer radial distance (0-60 em)die at very early stage (Mehrotra et al., 1982). from the tree trunk in lemon.Incompatibility was also reported in case of Gill et al. (1999) observed maximumMosambi over Rough lemon in earstwhile length of all type of roots in Cleopatra manda­Bombay State (Nagpal ,1959) and Sathgudi rin followed by Jatti khatti and Troyer citrange.over Jamberi in Andhra Pradesh (Chellappa The length of feeder roots was highest at aet al.,1961). Sharma et al. (1978) reported radial distance of 0-75 em and at a soil depthsmooth bud union of Jaffa and Valencia late of 0-15 em. The maximum fresh and dryand configuration with Pineapple and mosambi weight of all types of roots was recorded inon Troyer citrange. In view of good perfor- Cleopatra mandarin rootstock. Sukhbir et al.mance shown by the stionic combination, (1999) reported that the rootstock PectiniferaRangpur lime induced smooth union (Jagtap (Citrus pectinifera) showed significantly moreet al., 1999). dry weight of fibrous, thin and medium rootsRoot distribution in soil depths of 0-20 em at a radial distance

Aiyappa and Srivastava (1965) re- of 60-120 em, 0-60 em at a radial ,distance ofported that the roots of 1.5 year old Coorg 40-60 em and 20-40 em at a radial dls,tan,c~mandarin seedlings penetrated vertically upto of 120-180 em fr~m the trunk an~ slgmfI­41" and spread laterally upto 63" in healthy cantly lesser dry weight of the roots I.n all thetrees 45" and 57" in less chlorotic trees and 12 root zones studied of wherever thICk roots38" to 36" in severely affected trees. Iyengar were observed. as compared to Jatti khatti.et al. (1988) reported that in 6 year old Coorg Roots were mal.nly affected by ,the ~ootstock,mandarin trees, most of the activity (78-88 %) h?w.ever the sC1~n exerted a httle mfluence.was located within the top 15 em of the soil Similar ~bservatIon~ were recorde,d ~t Pantand 80-95 O/<) was confined within the radius nagar WIth Grapefruit budded on tnfohate or­of 120 em. Allurwar and Parihar (1992) stated ange wherein maximum volume and dry weightthat on the basis of rootstock grading Coorg of fibrous roots were recorded at 60-120 emwas observed to be the best owing to better radial distance x 0 -~O em depth followed bytap root length, more number and length of 120-180 em :adlal distance x 0-20 em depthlateral roots, higher dry weight of top and (Smgh and Mlshra,2000),feeder roots in comparison to other rootstocks. Kurien et al. (1992) found the maxi­Cleopatra followed the Coorg but dry weight mum root activity of Troyer citrange .and

Orlando tangelo trees on Carrizocitrange, Yuma citrange, Taiwanica andVolkamer lemons had longer canopy and nigheryield (Fallahi etal, 1991). Plant growth mea­sured as change in canopy diameter and plantheight was most vigorous and fruit number,

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 97

Kharna khatta with scion of Kinnow within 80 Phadnis (1961) found s~eet lemon,cm radius and 24 cm depth and 120 cm radial Jatti khatti and Jambhiri as most vigorousand 16 - 24 cm depth respectively. Kurien rootstocks for Nagpur mandarin, whereas souret al (1991) also reported that acid lime cv. orange had poor vigour, at Kato/(Maharashtra),Kagzi lime on Kharna khatta showed most ac- Deshpande et al (1977) using 6 rootstocks oftivity (75-80 %) within the radius of 80 cm Galgal, Jambheri, Jatti khatti, Karna khatta,and depth of 16-24 cm. Devy and Supriyanto Seville lime and sw~et lime found Jambheri and(1991) reported the best root system found on Jatti khatti impjlrting maximum vigour toSchaub rough lemon, Brazilian sour orange, Nagpur mandarin scion. Dhillon et al (1993)and C amblicarpa under Indonesia conditions. reported Jatti khatti produced greatest'canopyBhambota et al. (1979) observed the marked volume (24-26.4 m3) and Rubidoux the small­difference in the growth habit of root between est in case of Kinnow mandarin (14.8-15.4citrusspeciesasKharnakhattaandSylhetlime m3). Deshmukh et 81. (1977) using 42had deep penetration of root system while rootstocks for Nagpur mandarin at Katol re­grapefruit, Galgal and sweet lime was surface ported that Jamberi (Kadimbag) performedfeeder. Jatti khatti was in between these groups. better while Mahalung and Lucknow lemonThe grapefruit roots had the largest number of proved medium in vigour and rough lemonlaterals of the greatest length. Chandra et al (Shrirampur) and Kata jamir also seemed worth(1979) stated that maximum root activity of considering Trees growth was significantlyEureka round lemon (6 years old) at a depth of higher in Troyer citrange followed by Rough20 cm in summer (April to Junel"but the differ- lemon and Carrizo citrange (Ramkumar andence in root activity was not significant at dif- Ganpathy, 1992). Results from 8 year oldferent radial distances (60, 120 and 180 cm). plants suggested that Rangpur lime,In post monsoon period (Sept. to Nov.) root Roughlemon, Troyer citrange,Citrumelo, Tri­activity at different depths showed n6 signifi- foliate orange and Sunki mandarin were foundcant differences but it was the highest at a ra- to be vigorous rootstocks (plant height 2.67+dial distance of 60 cm. -0.28 m) followed by Baduvapuli, CleopatraRootstock effect· on growth mandarin and Kodakithuli. Belladakithuli was

On Volkamer lemon Oklawale sweet found to be the least vigorous rootstock withorange had large canopy vol~e and high yield a~lant ~ight of 1.73 m recording the I~westin contrast to trees on Savage citrange, gIrth u~lOn .of 19 cm compared to the hIghestCleopatra mandarin and Alemow (Fallahi, 34 cm 10 Citrumell~w(Ga~pa~hyetai, 1999).1992). Over the nine years production period Plants on Jambhen an~ Tnfohate o~ange p.ro­on Palestine sweet lime, three rough lemon duced better.grow~h, yIeld and sutvlval ~unngrootstocks and C volkameriana were more 9 years of tnal (Mlshra et aI., 1995). K1Onowproductive per unit of tree size and their yield trees o~ Marmalade orang~ r~otstock provedthan other rootstocks in Cyprus condition on most Vigorous and productive (Tayade et aI,Marsh grapefruit (Economides and Gregorion, 1995).1993). The smallest Nagpur mandarin treewere produced on Flying dragon, Rich 16-6(both Poncirus tri/oliata) these rootstock alsoproduced the smallest increase in canopy vol­ume over the three years trial period (Singhand Dass, 1999).

98 AGmCULTURALRE~EWS

average weight and diameter were greater in observed that sweet-orange rootstock itself was-, Volkameriana than in those on Cleopatra man- having greater potentialities of success for

darin (Valburene, 1996). Sathgudi orange in Kodur area (south India) inIn a series of experiments conducted comparison of Gajanimma and Jamberi. In case

at Coorg, Aiyappa et al (1967,1973) fotiVd of acid lime Gajanimma was the most suitablethat out of lime Baduvapalli Belladakithuli rootstock for certain parts of Andhra PradeshNaichakotha, rough lemon (C~org strain), sou; . (Rao et al, 1970).orange, pummelo, lime sadaphal, grapefruit, Rao et al. (1971) further recom­Kodaikithuli lemon, Molepuli and seedling mended Sathgudi rootstock for Sathguqi scion.Coorg (control) with Coorg mandarin, sour They also ooserved that woodapple (Fei-oniaorange and rough lemon gave higher scion/ jimonia) had marked dwarfing effects. Mehrotrastock ratio of 0.94, 0.93 and 0.91 respectively et al (1977) reported that Blood Red orangeas compared to other r00tstocks. Bopaih etal on Jatti khatti excelled all other rootstocks in(1983) reported that trees of Coorg mandarin volume. followed by Cleopatra mandarinwere appreciably taller than P.lrifojiata rough whereas, trees on Rangpur lime on Kharnalemon strains imparted vigour to scion tree for khatta made poor growth. Mann and NaurialNagpur mandarin (Diware et aI., 1997). (1978) revealea that Jamberi was the mostvig­Bhattacharya and DlJtta (1952) found that out orous rootstock for pineapple sweet orangeof Birajora, patilimbu, Panijamir, Sohmyndong, followed by Jullundhari and grapefruit.Katajamir, Sohsarkar, Karanjamir, Mehrotra et al (1982) observed highest tree

'Rababatenga, Satkara and Adajamir, volume of Mosambi on Jatti khatti followed bySohmyndong and Katajamir were very vigor- Rangpur lime. Chohan and Kumar (1983)ous with Khasi mandarin, the height and spread stated that the ~)(;st results were obtained onof the tree being 420 cm to 517.5 cm and Rangpur lime with Mosarnbi scion. Under Ban­385.4. cm to 487.3 cm, respectively. Singh galore conditions, 9 rootstocks were evaluatedet al (1978) using 17 rootstocks at IARI, New for Mosambi and results revealed that highestDelhi, showed that Sohsarkar proved the most tree height (312 cm) and volume (20.41 m3)

vigorous rootstock giving 235 cm plant height were recorded on rough lemon followed byand 4.11 m3 volume of Kinn0w mandarin. Rangpur lime 295 cm and 19.03 m3 (MustafaChohan et al (1978) found that Jatti khatti and Reddy, 1990). Poncirus trifoliata and its

.followed by Karna khatta gave maximum hybrids induced dwerfiness.vigour ~ith 26.6 m3 as tree volume of Kinnow Chohan eta/. (1986,1988 and 1~90)

mandann. revealed the vigorous vegetative growth ofIn the trials conducted in southern grapefruIt cultivar Marsh seedless on Carrizo

parts of the .country particularly Coorg, Hassan citrange'rootstock followed by Jatti khatti andand Chickmanglore in Karnataka,. Wynaad and Troyer citrange. Singh and Nagpal (1954) rec­Palghat district in Kerala, Ootacamund and ommended Nasnaran; Kharna khatta andMadurai district in Tamilnadu, rough lemon rough lemon as most vigorous rootstocks forproved best as rootstock for Kinnow mandarin Malta'iocal and 'rough lemon for Blood, red'(Srivastava and Bopaiah, 1978). Marmalade malta. Naik (1948) reported performance oforange appeared to be the best rootsto~k for ' I:lflworked tree of acid'lime and acid lime bud­Kinnow mandarin at Akola and Cleopatra. ded on Jambhiri, Gajanimma and acid lime.mandarin and Rangpur lime at Bhatinda ,Budded trees proved more vigorous and pre­(An0nymous, 1991). Rangacharlu eta/. (1958) cocious 'as compared to seedlings. Rao et aJ.

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 99

(1970) found Jambhiri to be most vigorousrootstock showing maximum tree spread(724.03 m3). Raj et a1 (1973) reported vigor­ous vegetative growth of acid lime on SouthAfrican rough lemon, Indian rough lemon,Troyer citrange and Puthugrama.

Ghosh eta1 (1982) reported the varia­tionin growth, characters like height, girth andthickness 'of rough lemon strains of NEH re­gion. Jawaharlal ei a1 (1987) using fiverootstocks at Periyakulam for acid lime andevaluation indicated the suitability of roughlemon followed by Troyer citrange and trifoli­ate orange.

Effect of rootstock on fruit yieldPhadnis (1961) found Rangpur lime,

Jamberi, Jatti khatti and sweet lime heavy yield­ers for Nagpur mandarin at Tharsa inMaharashtra. Sinha et a1 (1977) used 16rootstocks for Nagpur mandarin found signifi­cant· increase in total fruit yield in weight andnumber on Rangpur lime followed by Khamakhatta. Investigation in to the effect of root-

. stock on production of Nagpur mandarin andKinnow mandarin revealed that rough lemonwas the most vigorous wl-lle Rangpur limerecorteda higher fruit yield and quality (Ghoshand Chattopadhayay, 1993).

.Aiyappa eta1 (1967,1973,) recordedthat three rootstocks namely Belladakithuli,Baduvapalli and rough lemon gave significantlyhigher yield of Coorg mandarin with 623, 590and 556 fruits/tree/year respectively as com­pared to control bearing only 287 fruits/tree/year and Sour oranges was found to yield theleast (122 fruits/tree/year). VijayKumareta1(1990) indicated highest fruit yield of Coorgmandarin 'was recorded on Rangpur lime fol­lowed by rough lemon and on Rangpur limePuna foflowed by Rangpur lime, Katol withNagpur mandarin (PatH and Khobragade,'1999). In Assam Bijattacharya and Dutta(1952) found the rootstock Sohmyndong andKatajamir yielding 637.2 and 432.5 fruits of

Khasi mandarin/tree/year. Chohan et ai.(1978) reported that Jatti Khatti and KamaKhatta proved good rootstocks for Kinnow inPunjab yielding 450.7 and 415.3 fruits/tree/year respectively. The highest cumulative fruityield was recorded Singh et al.,(1978) reportedthat Troyer citrange was the most precious root­stock and highest yields were associated withtrees on Kama khatta and Sacaton citrumelo.Chaudharl eta1 (1974) stated that among 16rootstvcks tested for sweet orange' atShrirampur (Maharashtra) yield was maximumon Rangpur lime followed by Sohmyndong andJambheri Kodur. The yield of Blood Red sweetorange on rough lemon was higher than onother rootstocks (Bhullar and Nauriyal, 1975).

Chohan et a1 (1985) indicated greatestyield of sweet orange cv. pineapple on Jattikhatti. Chaudhari and Mali (1978) reportedhighest yield of Mosambi on Marmalade or­ange and also on Jatti khatti (Mehrotra et ai1982). Mustafa and Reddy (1990) found high­est number of fruits/tree of sweet orange var.Mosambi on Rangpur lime in comparison ofCleopatra mandarin, Citrumelo, Carrizo,Troyer citrange, Pomeroy and Rubidoux trifo­liate orange and Kodaikithuli:. Mehrotra et a1(1984) recorded greatest no. of fruits of sweetorange cv. Valencia and Jaffa on Jatti khattirootstocks. Raj et a1 (1973) reported the highyields of acid lime on South African roughlemon, Indian rough lemon, Troyer citrangeand Puthugraman rough lemon rootstocks.

Chohan et a1 (2000) reported thattrees on Jatti khatti rootstock showed only 21% healthy trees with lower mean yield(18lfruits/tree) compared to Cleopatra man­darin wnich showed 100 % healthy trees withmore mean yield (265fruis/tree) with sweet or­ange. Maximum no. of fruits (1009/plant) wasrecorded on Alemow rootstock with mediumcanopy' volume on acid lime scion (Sonkaret aI', 1999b). Singh and Nagpal (1947) re­ported the corresponding increase in fruit pro-

100 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

duction of Marsh seedless grapefruit on Khama Dhuria et al (1977) found that heaviest fruitskhatta (23%), rough lemon (22%), Shaddock were obtained from Emperor and Nagpur man­(19%), sweet lime (9%),and citron (13%). darin trees budded on Kharna· khatta inBajwa and Nagpal (1955) revealed that-the tree Himachal Pradesh condition.of Marsh seedless grapefruit on Khama khatta In trials conducted in China on Xuegangave the highest annual and cumulative yield orange, the best results in terms of yield and'and thereon sweet lime and citron the lowest. quality were recorded with the C reticulata,Chohan etal. (1986,1988 and 1990). recorded Haifengiu and Suanjiu rootstocks (Zhangthe highest yield of grapefruit cv. Marsh seed- 1993). Deshpande et al. (1977) reported theless on citrange and poorest yield on Kama maximum fruit weight and juic.e of Nagpurkhatta. Singh (1954) reported Kama khatta, mandarin on Lisbon lemon rootstock closelyNasnaran and rough lemon rootstocks as most followed by trifoliate orange and Malta lemon.productive for Malta local and Khama khatta Sinha et al. (1977) found the best sized fruit ofand rough lemon for Blood Red Malta. Yields Nagpur mandarin on trifoliate orange, Khama

.of orange, grapefruit and mandarin were sig- khatta, Baduvapalli, Cleopatra mandarin andnificantly greater with C amb¥arpa than with Rusk citrange while the sugar/acid ratio wassour orange rootstock and productivity index quite satisfactory on sweet lime, sweet orange(kg/m2

) was greater with sour orange rootstock (Mosambi), trifoliate orange and Rangpur lime.for all scions except mandarin (Simon et ai., The highest TSS and juice % were recorded1997). The highest yield of Washington Navel on trifoliate orange and Troyer citrange (And{lt'­orange was obtained from trees on citrange son and Benatena, 1996). Fruit yield was dis­and v'olkameriana rootstock (Tuzucu et aI, tinctly superior on Rangpur lime with slightly1997). smaller fruit with Nagpur mandarin (DiwareRootstocks effect on fruit quality et aI, 1999).

Mishra and Singh (1990) reported that The maximum average fruit weighthighest percentage of Pant lemon-l healthy and diameter were observed with Alemow andfruit was obtained from trees on Troyer citrange maximum juice recovery and TSS were on F1y­(70.18%) followed by Rangpur lime (67.01%) ing dragon trifoliate with Nagpur mandarinand lowest percentage of fruits (52.32)on own (Sonkar et aI., 2001). Dhuria et al. (1977)root trees. The lowest percentage of fruits with observed the highest fruit weight of Nagpursunscald injury were found in trees on Troyer mandarin on Kama Khatta, titratable aciditycitrange (18.85%). None of the rootstocks had on Seville lime, and no significant influence onany significant effects on the percentage of split TSS, reducing, non-reducing and total sugarsfruits which ranged from 24.41 to 29.69%. and vitamin-C.The trees on these rootstocks were hardy, high In Rootstocks trials with Nagpur man­tropping and had large fruits (Zhongping and darin at P.K.V.,Akola. Highest juice %, no. ofBihou, 1996). fruits/tree C)nd yield/ tree were obtained on

Prottopapadakis et al (1998) reported Rangpur lime, highest TSS with Pomeroy tri­that trees graft on Swingle citrumelo and foliate orange, highest acidity with Kodaikithulivolkamer lemon had longer and heavier fruits and highest ascorbic acid with rough lemonthan those on sour orange with Washington with Mosambi (Mustafa and Reddy, 1990).navel orange. Fruit colour was the earliest with Phillip and Mennon (1984) reported that ingood fruit size and distribution with X-639 root- Kerala, Coorg n:and~rin o~ ~rifoliate.rootstock

stock in Satsuma mandarin (Alexender, 1996). produced fruit With higher JUice content, sugar,

VoL 23, No.2, 2002 101

TSS/acid ratio, lower seeds and thinner rind fruits on different rootstocks. Rao et aJ. (1969)compared to those on Rangpur lime, rough claimed that the fruit weight and ascorbic acidlemon, Cleopatra mandarin and Troyer and content of Nepali oblong lemon was higher onCarrizo citranges. Italian 76 was found to be Gajanimma than on acid lime and Jambhiri.the best rootstock for Hill mandarin on which Chohan et aJ. (1988 and 1990) re­the fruit excelled in vitamin-C content (Singh, ported tne best fruit quality on grapefruit culti­1962). Xiechenge (C junoS) was used as root- var Marsh seedless on Carrizo citrange andstock for Gangberi Satsuma mandarin in China. Troyer citrange. Fruits with highest juice con­After 6 years scion trees grew well, bore early tent were produced on the Poncirus trifoliataand heavily with fruit maturing earlier with good rootstock and fruits with the highest and low­quality (Jinhua, 1997). The trees of Blood red est TSS contents were produced on citrangebudded on Cleopatra rootstock had better fruit d ~k t k t' Ian v ameriana roo stoc s respec IVe yquality compared to those on Jatti khatti (Tuzucu let aJ., 1997).(Chohan et aJ.. 2000).

Rootstock effect on granulation of fruitsAli and Rahim (1960) noted highest Rootstocks influence the incidence and

ascorbic acid contents in fruits of Valencia late extent of granulation, though their influence isvariety of sweet orange on Seville lime (sour not much consistent and also dE:pend on theorange) rootstock against the lowest on rough climatic factors (Singh, 2001). Chohan et aJ.lemon and Jullundhari Khatti. Mehrotra et aJ. (1982) found that the Blood Red sweet orange(1984) reported fruit of Valencia orange hav- fruits on Jatti khatti and Kharna khatta root­ing highest TSS content on Troyer and Carrizo stock showed more granulation than on Troyercitrange. Rao et aJ. (1971) stated that Sathgudi

and Carrizo citrange, Rangpur lime, Cleopatraorange on Sathgudi seedlings produced better

and citrumelo whereas, maximum granulationquality fruits with higher TSS/acid ratio andof Jaffa was observed on Jatti khatti, Troyerfruit size was also larger than on C. jambhiri

rootstock whereas vitamin-C of Blood Red or- and Carrizo, Rangpur lime, pectinifera andange was higher on sour orange than on other citrum~lo (Mehrotra et aJ., 1984). Sweet or­rootstocks (Bhullar and Nauriyal, 1974). Mann ange cv. Hamlin on two different rootstocksand Naurial (1978) reported the juice and TSS did not get influenced in respect to physico­contents as highest in truit of Pineapple sweet chemical parameters of fruit but Cleopatraorange and vitamin-C on sour orange. mandarin produced fewer granulated fruits thanCitrumelo rootstocks promoted higher yield, those on Jatti khatti (Chohan et aJ., 1988).earlier fruit maturity and better fruit and juice Sadhu and Singh (1989) observedquality than mandarin rootstocks (Zekri, 1997) highest degree of granulation in fruits of Jaffafor Ambersweet. The highest mean of trees grown on Jatti Khatti, followed by KharnaMostlmbi fruit weight on rough lemon juice khatta at Bhatinda.Vigorous stocks such asper cent on Rangpur lime, TSS on Pomeroy rough lemon or wild grape fruits produce moretrifoliate orange, acidity per cent on Kadaikithuli granulated fruits (Bains, 1949).Less vigorousand ascorbic acid contents on rough lemon trees were not severely affected by the granu-were recorded (Mustafa and Reddy, 1990). lation (Jawanda et aJ., 1978).

Prasad (1967) reported highest TSS/ Rootstock effect on the post-harvest qual­acid ratio in fruits of Seville orange on Italian- ity of fruits76. Naik (1948) found no significant difference Jawaharlal et aJ. (1991) revealed thatwith regards to TSS and acidity of acid lime physiological loss of weight (Phisiolosical loss

102 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

in weight %} variation of acid lime was signifi­cant as influenced by different rootstocks. Thehighest weight loss (14.3 %) was recorded inthe fruits from Troyer citrange closely followedby trifoliate orange (12 %). Rangpur lime root­stock extended the shelf life of fruits upto 6days as against 4 days in acid lime seedlingsplants compared to rootstock. The physicalattributes of Kinnow fruits viz. Compression,peel rupture force and specific gravity showedhigher values with Kama rootstock,which areconsidered desirable characters from post har­vest handling and transportation point of view(Saxena. 1999). Fruits borne on trifoliate or­ange tend to be free from bitterness whencanned, while fruit on Rough lemon are verybitter when canned (Kefford and Chandler,1961).

Effect on nutrients uptake patternIn a study at Bangalore, among 7

rootstocks, leaf nutrients composition of Coorgand Kinnow mandarin showed higher leaf Ncontent on trifoliate, Carrizo and Troyercitrange and rough lemon. Cleopatra andKodakithuli mandarin roots were more efficientin absorbing cations Ca, Mg and K. The leafMn content was low in tree of Carrizo andTroyer rootstocks (Iyengar et al., 1982).Bopaiah et al. (1983) stated that N,P,K levelshad no significant effects on Coorg mandarinwith different rootstocks for different vegeta­tive growth. Peynado and Young (1962) ob­served that Alemow reduced the uptake ofboron; Rangpur lime, Cleopatra mandarin,Sunki and Tmkat mandarin rootstock retardedchlorine uptake and sour orange lowered thesodium content. Anjaneyulu and Misra (1983)reported that Nand K were highest in Coorgmandarin on rough lemon, Ca and Zn onBc!ladakithuli and P, Mg, Fe and Mn onBclduvapuli rootstock. Gowda (1983) observedthat K, Ca and Mg content in non-fruiting leavesof Coorg and Kinnow mandarin were signifi­cantly influenced by different rootstocks.

Kunwar and Singh (1983) reportedhighest leaf N, P, K, Ca and Mg on hill lemon,Troyer citrange, Malta sweet orange,Buduvapuli and Hill lemon, respectively.Iyengar et al. (1984) observed that four lemoncultivars showed higher K, Ca, Mg and Zn con­tent in leaves on rough lemon, Cleopatra andRangpur lime. Dwarfing rootstocks such astrifoliate orange and their hybrids resulted inhigher contents of Nand P in scion leaves.Citrumelo and citrange resulted in very low leafMn content than the other rootstocks. Taydeand Joshi (1986) reported that Rangpur limestrain Srirampur and 3 other (Jambheri, Karanand Nebutenga) had higher leaf N, Ca, Mg,Fe, Zn and Cu in comparison of otherrootstocks. Significant variation in uptake ofN, K, Mg, Fe and Mn while P, Ca, Zn and Cushowed no significant variation in acid limeon trifoliate orange, Rangpur lime, Cleopatramandarin and C. macrophylla rootstocks.These rootstocks absorbed less amount of Mnand may be suited for acidic soils having Mntoxicity. Sun chu sha rootstock showed bal­anced amount of nutrient absorption (Marathe(!f al., 2000).

Rootstock responses to droughtRao et al. (1987) reported that citrus

rootstocks have different response to droughtconditions as Rangpur lime showed highest tol­erance followed by Nasnaran, Poncirvs trifoliataand Troyer citrange while Citrus jambhiri wasmore susceptible rootstock. Vijaykumar et al.(1990) recommended that rough lemon andRangpur lime were suitable for situation pre­vailing in Shevroys conditions. Bankar et al.(1999) reported Rangpur lime (Citrus limonia)to be most drought tolerant as indicated bymore accumulation of proline in the leaves ascompared to Kagl:i lime and rough lemonbased on the accumulation of proline in leaves.

Rootstock responses to chlorosisSinha et al. (1977) found that lemon

with Nagpur mandarin had highest percent-

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 103

age of chlorotic leaves. Rough lemon.Belladakithuli and Baduvapuli had significantlylesser percentage of chlorosis (36.22 %,43,32% and 38,25 %, respectively) as compared tocontrol (50.13%) in rootstocks trial of Coorgmandarin (Aiyappa eta!, 1967, 1973, 1977).Jawanda and Mehrotra (1974) found symp­toms of chlorosis in citrumelo and Rangpur limerootstocks and similar observations were alsorecorded of Jatti khatti for Valencia scion bySingh and Nagpal (1954) and Sharma et a!(1978).

Bopaiah et a! (1983) stated that chlo­rosis was lowest (18%) in Coorg mandarin treeson rough lemon receiving 600 g N/tree andhighest (30%) in trifoliate orange receiving thehighest Prate (200 g/ tree) Swingle citrumeloperformed very poorly in alkaline soil exhibit­ing lime induced iron chlorosis at early age (Ianand Tolly, 1997). The extent of chlorosis inleaves was highest (78%) in Belladakithulli fol­lowed by Coorg mandarin seedlirig (74O,'h) inCoorg mandarin (Ganpathy et al 1999).Clementine rootstock showed the maximumintensity of chlorosis and die back which af­fected fruit yield in Sweet orange (Saxena,1999),

Rootstock responses to salinityCleopatra mandarin (Grabstan and

Narana), Schaub rough lemon and Rangpurlime (Texas) and Cleopatra mandarin (Tirupati.Coorg and Morocco) were the salinity tolerantrootstocks (Singh et aI., 1997). Singh et at(2000), observed Rangpur lime tolerant, roughlemon moderately tolerant and trifoliate orangeas susceptible rootstock to salinity. The mostsalt tolerant rootstocks included Cleopatramandarin, Rangpur lime, sweet orange, Carrizocitrange and Troyer citrange, Salt tolerance waslowest with trifoliate orange (Grieve. 1983).

Bhambota and Kanwar (1968) stud­ied the performance of various sweet orangeson different rootstocks with respect to salinityand revealed that salt tolerance of different

rootstocks varied in the order Kharna khatta(C kama» Galgal (Climon» trifoliate(Ptrifo!iata» rough lemon (C jambhir1J. Outof various scions budded on rough lemon thesalt tolerance varied in the order Hamlin >Valencia late> Pineapple> Blood Red. Joolkaand Singh (1979) stated that Rangpur lime andCleopatra mandarin were the most tolerant andBhadri lemon (C limon) and Jatti khatti (Cjambhin) the most susceptible. Joolka et al(1980) reported that C jambhiri with sweetorange cv. Blood red was least susceptible tohigh level of salinity in comparison of Troyercitrange . Cleopatra mandarin and Rangpurlime. Volkameriana lemon and Rangpur limeshowed greater salt tolerance than otherrootstocks in Egypt (El-Desouky and Atawia,1998).

Rootstock responses to diseasesIn Assam pummelo. sweet orange,

Adajamir and acid lime were found highly sus­ceptible whereas rough lemon was moderatelysusceptible and mandarin and sour orange werefound resistant to Phytophthora (Chowdhury,1951) In peninsular India, Ramkrishnan(1954) found lemons. citranges, Sathgudi,Jambhiri, grapefruit, mandarin and acid limeas susceptible to Phytophthora except sourorange which was found resistant. Singh(1961) reported that sweet lime was immuneto collar rot at Saharanpur. Dhillon and Sharma(1977) stated that Cleopatra mandarin inPunjab condition proved to be tolerant to footrot. Prasad and Rao (1983) found that hybrids of Cleopatra and trifoliate were most tol­erant to Phytophthora. In a preliminary trialfor resistance against P citrophthora and Pnicotianae var. nicotianae. only trifoliate wasfound resistant whereas Nagpur mandarin andCleopatra mandarin were highly susceptible.

Tdyde et al (1988) reported thatKharna khatta was the most susceptible root·stock to Phytophthora for Kinnow mandarinVaried degree of susceptibility was observed

104 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

acid lime, rough lemon, sweet lime, Billikichilli,grapefruit and Rangpur lime (Naqvi,1988).Bjtters noted that C macrophy//a was r'esis­tant to tristeza and is a good rootstock forlemon. In another study Bitters et al (1973)stated that C macrophy//a besides being resis­tant to Phytophthorawas tolerant to exotortis.The other rootstock trials at different locationsin the country have shown the variability amongthe strains nf Rangpur lime and rough lemonfor the resistance to P parasitka. Limocravo,Brazil, Rangpur lime (Knorr) and Souranthanstrain of Rangpur lime and Jatti khatti strain ofrough lemon were having better ranking forresistance against Phytophthora (Anonymous,1991).

Flying dragon is resistant toPhytophthora ro.ot rot and citrus tristeza virus(Cheng and Roos,1995) Wutscher and Hill(1995) reported after % years Norton citrangedeveloped citrus blight. Geraci (1997) reportedthat CNR PI (a hybrid between C depressa xPoncirus trifo/iata) is resistant to Phytophthoraand tolerant to poor soil conditions. Poncirustrifo/iata has been and continues to be, a verysuccessful replant rootstock, being resistant to

Phytophthora (Ian and Tolly, 1997).

Rootstock responses to virusesAmong 16 rootstocks tested for sweet

orange, Sohmyndong, Jambhiri Kodur,Jambhiri Bombay and Rangpur lime were tol­erant to tristeza and greening but were suscep­tible to Phytophthora (Chaudhary etai, 1974).Dhillon and Sharma (1977) stated that youngtrees of Cleopatra mandarin declined due totristeza and xyloporosis viruses (Table 3).Choudhari and Mali (1978) reported Mosumbion marmalade orange is highly tolerant totristeza. Resistance for tristeza, psorosis,exocortis, Phytophthora and greening wasevaluated in 137 citrus cultivars and, out ofthese, six of Citrus jambhiri, three of Citrus/imonia, Cleopatra mandarin and C.amb/ycarpa were suitable as rootstocks forsweet oranges (Chaudhari et ai, 1980).Mehrotra et al (1982) reported the presenceof greening virus in all the combinations ofMosumbi with rootstocks viz., Jatti khatti,Kama khatta, Troyer and Carrizo citrange,Rangpur lime, Citrumelo, Peetinifera andJambhiri.

Table 3. Rootstocks tolerant against the viruses and/or virus-like agents.

Virus/virus like disease Tolerant-rootstocks Reference

Tristeza

Exocortis

Xyloporosis

Greening

Rough lemon and Cleopatra

Rough lemon, Cleopatra mandarin,sweet orange and sour orange

Rough lemon, Cleopatra mandarinseveral orange and trifoliate orangeRough lemonstrains, Milan, MiriVolkamer and South Africa I and II

Balaraman and Ramakrishnan (1977)Cheema et al. (1985)Cheema et al. (1985)Chohan and Knorr (1970) andKapur et al. (1974)Chohan and Knorr (1970)

Cheema et al. (1982)

Rootstock responses to nematodesMani and Reddy (1986) reported

Pomeroy trifoliate as resistant to nematodes.Chandel and Sharma (1989) reported trifoli­ate orange as most resistant, Troyer citrange,Carrizo citrange and scalo citrumelo quite re­sistant. and Rangpur lime, grapefruit, Citruspecfinifera as moderately resistant. Flying

dragon,Pomeroy and Rubidoux trifoliate or­anges and citrumelo 4475 were found highlyresistant to Ty/enchu/us semipenitrance butRangpur lime was highly susceptible (Chang,1980). Certain citrus hybrids (C sinensis x Ptrifo/iata, C depressa x P trifo/iata) apppearedto be resistant to Ty/enchu/us semipenetrans(Geraci et ai, ~981). The most predominant

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002 lOS

and widely distributed nematode wasTyJenchuJus semipenetrans followed by BasiriagraminophJla and RotyJenchuJus rem/ormis inNagpur mandarin under central India condi­tions (Bansa Singh, 1997),

Rootstock responses to insect-pestsMakar et aJ. (1979) reported the low­

est mean no. of mites per 5 leaves (0,6) onPhilippine Red lime (C auranfJIolia) followedby Cleopatra mandarin, Morocco (2.1) andmites were noticed on Grabstan (3.6) while thehighest number of mites were noticed on tan­gelo (57.5) and Kharna khatta (55.4) underShrirampur conditions.

Promising rootstocksThe promising rootstocks shown in the

Table 4 are based on the work compiled be­fore 1982 Agrawal, 1982)and the other prom­ising rootstock are based on the work com­piled after 1982 and onwards till commence­ment of the 21" century. The promising per­formance of Kodaikithuli, Rangpur lime, andcitrange in south Coorg and Rangpur lime andCleopatra mandarin in north Coorg ofKarnataka was reported by Vijaykumar et aJ.(1989,1990) for Coorg mandarin.

Chohan et aJ. (1982) reported thattrees of Blood Red sweet orange on roughlemon and Cleopatra mandarin did best.Chohan et aJ. (1986) further indicated that Jattikhatti followed by Pineapple proved best root­stock for sweet orange cv. Valencia late. Tenyears studies on rootstock trial revealed thatrough lemon was found to be significantly su­perior in respect of growth, yield and roughlemon, marmalade orange and Cleopatra man­darin for Mosumbi, marmalade orange forKinnow, rough lemon and Rangpur lime foracid lime at Periyakulam, Cleopatra mandarinfor Kinnow at Bhatinda proved promising(Anonymus,1993). Considering the growth,yield and fruit quality attributes, Rangpur limeand C voJkamen'ana may prove suitable forKhasi mandarin in mid hills of Meghalaya (Sheo

Govind et aJ., 1994). C-32 produced highestyields with all scions except lemon (Roos.1996).

Xiecheng was used as a rootstock forGongben Satsuma mandarin and it was notedthat scion trees grew well, bore early andhealthy, fruits matured earlier and had goodeating quality of mandarin fruits in China(Jianhua,1997). Sour orange and Swinglecitrumelo were the most promising rootstocksfor Washington navel oranges (Prottopapadakiset aJ., 1998). Yuma sacatan and Swinglecitrumelo were observed to be promising rootstocks for grapefruit in South Africa (Breedtand Koekemoer, 1996). Rich 16-6, a trifoli­ate selection, was found suitable for Citrus Ji­moncv. Lisbon Frost giving highest yield (321fruits/tree) out of 13 trifoliate selections andits hybrids in Monte Grande, Argentina (Foguetet aJ., 1997)..

CONLUSIONSRootstock development is an unend­

ing process because success depends on theinteraction of genetic potential with soil, cli­mate, disease, pests and cultural practices. Em­phasis needs to be laid on production and main­tenance of virus free nucellar line for impor­tant varieties and budwood from these virusfree trees should b12 used for raising plants forfuture rootstock trials. As it is well known thatall the virus diseases are bud transmissible ex­cept the xyloporosis which is seed transmit­ted, it is the need of the hour to use virus freebudwood and nucellar seedlings. Physiologi­cal and anatomical studies of rootstocks-scioninteraction, rootstock effect on scion perfor­mance, pathogen induced response, newmethod for for early and rapid evaluation fortolerance to various biotic and abiotic stressesand prediction of incompatibility at an earlystage need to be studied. It is therefore neces­sary to initiate investigation to select suitablerootstock suiting to prevailing soil and climaticconditions for citrus.

106 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Table 4. Best performing rootstocks for various citrus scions in different regions (Agarwal, 1982)

Area Scion Rootstock Attributes

Punjab

Uttar Pradesh

Assam

Maharashtra

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka(Coorg)

Sweet orangesMalta local Karna khatta High vigour and yieldMalta Blood Red Rought lemon -cIo-Blood red organe Jatti khatti -do-Mosambi -do- High vigourValencia orange -do- -do-Valencia Campbell -dO- High vigour and yIeldJaffa -do- High vigourPineapple -do- -do-MandarinsSangtra local Kharna khatta -do-Kinnow Jatti khatti High vigour and yieldGrapefruitsMarsh seedless Kharna khatta -do-Sweet orangesMosambi Sweet lime High vigour, precociousness,

good fruit quality andresistance to collar rot.

Vanille Italian-76 High vigour, resistanceHill Italian-76 High vigour, yield and

resistance to collar rot.Sweet orangesValencia Katajamir High vigour and yieldMandarinsKhasi Sohmydong High vigour, yield and

resistance to gummosisSweet orangesGaneshkhind Rangpur lime High vigour and yieldDessa -do- -do-Nucellar mosambi -cIo- -do-Sweet orangesSathgudi Sathgudi Disease resistance

and good fruit qualityAcid limeAcid lime Gajinimma High vigour and yieldMandarinsCoorg Belladakithuli High vigour and yield

Baduvapuli -do-

Rough Lemon -do-

REFERENCESAgarwal, P.K. (1982). Agric. Review3:17-34.Aiyappa, KM. eta/. (1967). Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Trap. Subtrop. Hart., 763-780.Aiyappa, KM. et a/. (1973). Indian J Hart. 30:492-499.Aiyappa, KM. and Srivastava, KC. (1965). Indian J Hart. 22: 122-128.Alexender, C.J. (1996). Pro. Int. Soc. Citri., 100-102.Ali, N. and Rahim, A. (1960). Punjab FruitJ 23:10-15.Allurwar, MW. and Parihar, S.K. (1992). Soils and Crops 2:100-101.Anderson, C.M. and Benatena. H.N. (1996). Proc. In!. Soc. Citriculture. 103-108.Anjaneyulu, K and Mishra, A.K. (1983). Progressive HaFt. 15:79-82.Anonymous. (1960) Final Rep. on Invest. of Rootstocks of root rot disease in Andhra Pradesh. 957-60. lCAR, New Delhi.Anonymous (1991). Res. Report of AICRP on Tropical Fruits. Tech. Doc. No. 41, IIHR. Bangalore.

107

.--------

Vol. 23, No.2, 2002

Anonymous (1993). Res. Report of AICRP on Tropiclal Fruits. Tech. Doc. No. 53. IIHR, Bangalore.Bajwa, B.S. and Nagpal. RL. (1955). Indian J Hart 12.91-107.Balaraman, K and Ramakrishan, K (1977). Tech. Series bull. 19. Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore.Bankar, G.J. et al. (1999). Abst. Int Symp. on Citriculture held at NRC for Citrus,Nagpur, p 65.Bansa Singh (1997). Proc. National Symp. on Citriculture, 17th-19th November, 319-324.Bhambota, J.R and Kanwar, J.R (19681. Int. Citrus. Symp. Univ. of Calif Riverside: 16-27 March: 62.Bhambota, J.R etal (1979). Punjab Hort J 17: 30-33.Bhattacharya, S.c. and Dutta, S. (1952). IndianJ Hart. 9: 1-11.Bhullar, J.S. and Nauriyal, J.P. (1974). Punjab Hart. J 14: 21-28.Bhullar, J.S. and Nauriyal, J.P, (1975). IndianJ Hart. 32: 45-49.Bitters, w.P. etal (19731. Citrograph58: 419,420,438,439.Bopaiah, M.G. et al (1983). Progr. Hart. 15: 51-55.Breedt, H. J. and Koekemoer, P.J.J. (1996). Proc. Int. Soc. Otri.. 164-166.Bridges, GD. et al {1965}. Proc. Ra. State Hart. Soc. 78 : 48-50.Campbell, CW. (19911. Proc. Ra. State Hart. Soc. 104 : 28-30.Castle, W.S. (1987). In: Rootstocks for frUIt crops (Rom and Carlson ed.) 361-399.Chadha, KL. et al. {1970}. Citrus decline in India: Causes and Control, PAU, Ludhiana, India: 1-97.Chadha, KL. and Singh, H.P. (1990). Proc. Citriculture scenario ofIndia. Abohar, Punjab: 21-64.Chandel. YS. and Shar·ma. N.K (1989). Indian. J Agric. Sci. 59: 608-609.Chandra, Atul, et al (1979). Indian. J Agric. Sci. 49 : 958-61.Chang, C.N. (1980). J Chinese Soc. Hart Sci. 26: 76-77.Chapot, H. (1975). Citrus, Technical Monograph No.4, Ciba-Geigy Agrochem., Basle, Switzerland.Chaudhari, KG. and Mali, VR {1978}. J MaharashtraAgric. Univ., 3: 40-44.Chaudhari, KG. etal. (1974). MPAVRes. J, 5 :100-6.Chaudhari, KG. et al. (1980). J Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 5 : 113-18.Chellappa, T. et al (1961). Proc. 4th Hort. Res. Workers Cont. May, 1961.Cheema, S.S. et al. (1982). Scientia Hart. 18 : 71-75.Cheng, F.S. and Roos. M.L. (1995). J Am. Soc. Hart. Sci, 120 :286-291.Chohan. G.S. and Kumar. H. (1983). PAUJ Res.. 20: 275-280Chohan, G.5. etal (1982). J Res. India. 19: 107-112Chohan, G.S. etal (1985). PAUJ. Res. 22: 43-47.Chohan, G.S. etal (1986}.lndianJ. Hart. 43: 29-34.Chohan, G.S. et al. (2000). Indian J Hart. 57 : 54-58.Chohan, G.S. etal (1988). IndianJ. Hart 45: 208-211Chohan, G.S. et al (1978). Indian J. Hart. 35: 212-215Chohan, G.S. et al (1988). Punjab. Hart. J. 20: 27-29.Chohan, G.S. etal (1988). IndianJ. Hart. 47: 297-300.Chohan, G.S. etal {1990}. IndianJ Hart. 47: 297-300.Chohan, KG. and Mali, VR (1978). J MaharashtraAgric. Univ. 3: 40-44.Chohan, KG. and Knorr, L.c. (1970). In: CitrusDecIine in India (Chadha, KL. eta/. ed.) PAU, Luclhiana, Punjab, pp 79-97.Choudhauri, KG. etal (1974). MPAVRes. J. 5:113-118.Chowdhary, S. (1951l.lndianJ Agric. Sci. 16: 570-571.Deshmukh, P.P. and Singh Ranjit (1977). Proc. Int Symp. Citriculture, Bangalore : 203-207.Deshpande, VB. etal (1977). Proc. Int. Symp. Citri., Bangalore. 161-165.Dhillon, B.S. (19661. Punjab Hart. J. 6 : 45-48.Dhillon, RS. and Sharma KK (1977). Punjab Hart. J 17: 104-108.Dhillon, P.S. et al (1993). Punjab Hart. J. 33 :17-20.Dhuria, H.S. et al (1977). Proc. Int. Symp. Otricult Bangalore • 142-149.Diwane, DV etal. (1999). Proc. Nat. Symp. Otri. Nov. 17-19-NRCC. Nagpur 201-205Diware, DV etal (1997). Proc. Nat Symp. Citri 17-19th Nov., Nagpur 201-204.Devy, N.F. and Supriyanto, A. (1991). HorfJkultura (Indonesia) 27 : 66-73.Fawcett, H.S.(1934). Phytopathology, 24 : 654-658.Fallahi, E. (1992). Fruit Varieties J. 46: 44-48.Fallahi, E. etal. (1991). Comm. SoilSci. PI Analy. 22 :1047-1057.Economides, C.v. and Gregario {1993}. J. Am. Soc. Hart. Sci. 118:326-329.EI-Desouky, SA and Atawia, A.A.R (1998). Alexendaria J. Agric. Res. 43: 231-254

108 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS

Faguet. J.L. eta/. (1997). AvanseAgroindustria/18 :"4-6.Fard, H.w. (1959). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 74: 313·321.Ganpathy, M.M. eta/. (1985). MysoreJ Agric. Sci. 19: 98-100.Gimpathy, M.M. et a/. (1999). Abst. Int. Symp. Citri. held at NRC far Citrus, Nagpur (23-27 Nav.), p 35.GeracI. G. (1997). Rivista di Frutsi ca/tura edi orto Horticultura 59 : 27 - 29.Gill. O.S. eta! (1999). Abst. Int. Symp. On Citricultureheld at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur, p 66.Ghosh. S.P. eta! (1982). PunjabHort J 22: 45-51.Gapalkrishna, N. and Kunte, YN. (1958). PoonaAgnl::. Col! Mag. 49: 19-25.Gangales, A. and Figusroa, L.A. (1994). J. Agri. Uni Puerto Rico 80.Gawda. V.N. (1983). Thesis Abst. Haryana Agri! Univ. 9 : 346.Gosh. S.N. and Chattapadhyay, N. (1993). Hort. J 6:79-82.Grieve, A W. (1983). Aust. Otrus News 59: 3-8.Hutchisan O.J. et a/. (1992). Rorida Sta. Hart. Soc. 105:60-63.Ian. S. and Tally, a.AM. (1997). Aust. Otrus News. March, 3 : 6.lyenger. B.RV et a/. (1982). Sci. Hort. 16 : 163-69.Iyenger. BRV et a/. (1984). Indian J Hart. 41 : 230-36.Jagtap, O.D. et a/. (1999). Abst. Int. Symp. Otri. held at NRC far Citrus, Nagpur. p 62Jawaharlal. M. et a/. (1987). South Indian Hort. 35 : 236-239.Jawaharlal M. eta! (1991). South Indian Hort. 39: 151-152.Jawanda. J.S eta! (1978). Punjab Hort. J 18: 180-188.Jawanda, J.S. and Singh, Kirti (1973). Punjab. Hort. J 13 : 89-93.Jiang J. (1996). South China Fruits 25 : 20.Jaalka, N.K. and Singh, J.P. (1978). Indian J Agric. Sci. 49 : 88-861.Jaalka, N.K eta/. (1980). HaryanaJ Hart. Science 9 : 125-128.Kef/ord, J.F. and Chandller, BV (1961). Aust. J Agric. Res. 12: 56-58.Kunwar, R and Singh, R (1983). J Pit. Nut. 6: 405-412.Kurien, S et a/. (1991). Exp. Agric. 27 :431-434.Kurien, S. eta! (1992). J Hort. Sci 67: 87-94.Lallan Ram, eta! (1999a). Abst. Int. Symp. On Otricultureheld at NRC for Citrus. Nagpur, Pg 58.Lallan Ram, et a/. (1999). Indian J Agric. Sci. 69: 193-197.Levy, Y and Lifshitz, J. (1995). ScientiaHort. 61: 131-137.Makar, PV eta/. (1979). J MaharashtraAgric. Univ.4: 231-232.Mandge, AS and Chakhawar, URI. (1981). J Maharashtra. Agric. Univ. 6 : 22-24.Mani. A and Reddy. G.S. (1986).lndianJ Nematology 16 : 267-268.Mann. S.S. and Naurial. J.P. ( 1978). Progressive Hart. 10: 37-42.Marathe, RAetal (2000). IndianJ Hart. 57: 95-101.Mehrotra, N.K eta! (1977). Proc. Int. Citrus. Symp. Bangalare, 167.Mehrotra, N.K. eta/. (1982). Indian J Hart. 39: 57-63.Mehratra. N.K. eta! (1984). Indian J Hort. 41: 29-36.Mehratra. N.K. et a/. (1984). Indian J Hart. 47 : 19-26.Mishra, KK and Singh Ranvir (1990). Indian J Hort. 47: 323-24.Mishra, KK eta! (1995). IndianJ Hort. 53 :186-191.Mishra, KK eta! (1999). Abst. Int. Symp. On Citriculture held at NRC far Citrus,Nagpur,Pg 67Mati Lal ,v.S (1963). Sci .cult. 29 : 460.Mukherjee, S.K and Singh, YM. (1966). Sci. Cult. 32 : 207-208.Mustafa, M.M. and Reddy, B.M.C. (1990). Crop. Res. (Hissar) 3: 234-240.Nagpal, RL. (1959). Citrus, Industry, 40 : 14-15.Naik, KC. (1948). Indian J Agric. Sci. 18: 137-146.Nandi, H.K. et a! (1943) Indian J Agric. Sci. 13 : 489-493.Naqvi, SAM.H. (1988). Annual Report, 1988-89 NRCC; Nagpur.Navin Singh and Mishra. KK (2000). IndianJ Agric. Sci. 70: 611-2.Newcomb, DA (1977). Proc. Int. Soc Otri. PP. 124-126.Nemec. S. (1978). Proc. Fla. State Hart. Soc 91: 10-14.Pati!, SR and Khabragade, R.I.(1999). Abst. Int. Symp.on Otrieheld at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur p61.Peynade, A and Yaung. R. (1962). J Rio Grande Valley. Hart Soc. 16 :52-58Phadnis, N.A (1961) Proc 4th Res. Workers Can! May. 1961.

Vol. 23. No.2. 2002

Philip, J. and Mennon, MK (1984). Agrie. Res. J Kerala. 22 • 173-176.Prasad, A. (1967). Proc. Int. symp. Subtropical Tropical Hart. New Delhi.781-95.Prasad, M.B.N.v. and Rao, N.N.R (1983). Indian Phytopath. 36 • 726-728.Prasad, M.B.N.v. and Ravishankar. H. (1982). South Indian Hart. 30 • 131-133.Prasad, M.B.N.v. and Ravishankar. H. (1983). South Indian Hart 31.101-3.Prottopapadakis eta! (1998). Fruits(Paris) 53: 167-173.Raj, S.A. eta! (1973). Annamalai Un/v. Agric. Res. Ann. Rep. 415.203-206.Ramakrishnan, T.S. (1954). Common Diseases of Citrus in Madras state. Gov!. of Madras. Madras.Ramkumar and Ganpathy. M. (1992). indian. J Han 49 : 222-226.Rao, C.v.R et a! \1987/. Indian J P! PhysJO! 30 . 303-304Rao, C.v.R et a1. (1971). Indian. J Hart. 28 • 189-195.Rao, S.N. et a1. (1970). Indian. J Hart. 27 : 16-20.Rao. S.N. eta! (1969). lhJd26. 117-20.Roos, M.L. (1996). Proe. Int. Soc. Citriculture .141-144.Sadhu, A.s.and Singh. K (1989). HaryanaJ Hart. 18 :157-60.Samson, J.A. (1986). In: Tropical fruits. Tropical series: 73-138.Saxena, S.K (1999). Abst.lnt. symp. on Citricultureheld at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur, p 54.Saxena, S.K et a! (1999). Abst. Int. symp. on Citriculture held at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur. p 55.Sen, N.L. and Kapadia. M.N. (1984). GujratAgrie. Uni. Res. J 9: 57-58Sharma, KK and Sharma. RC. (1986). Haryana J Hart. Sci. 15 • 57-58.Sharma, KK (1982). Ph.D. dissertation Punjab Agric. Univ. Ludhiana.Sharma, KK et a! (1978). Indian J Hart. 35 : 350-351.Sheo Govind et a! (1994). Indian J Hart. 51 :123-129.Simon. A. et al. (1997). Tropical Fruits News letter 23 : 5-7.Shinde, B.N. et a! (1997), Proc. Nat. Symp. on Citnculture. 17th-19th Nov.1997. 177-179.Singh, I.S. (1964). Allahahad Farmer, 38: 165-69.Singh, L. and Singh, S (1944). IndianJ Agric Sci. 14.95-100.Singh, KK (1961). Indian Hart. 6 • 7-9.Singh. S. and Nagpal, RL. (1947). Indian. J Agnc. Sci 17: 117-27.Singh, RP. (1962b). IndianJ Hart., 19: 25-31.Singh, R et a! (1978). Punjab Hort. J 18 : 143-48.Singh, A. and Dass, H.C. (1999). Indian J Agrie. Sci 68 • 52-54.Singh, A. et a! (1997). Indian J Hart. 54 : 283-287.Singh, A. et a1. (2000). Abstract Int. symp. Citriculture, Orlando Florida 3-7 Dec., 2000. P 265.Singh.Room (2001) Indian J Hart. 58: 112-144.Sinha. RB. et a1. (1977). Proe. Int. Symp. Citd Bangalore p. 14.Sonkar, R K et a! (1999). Abst. Int. symp. on Citriculture held at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur. p 59Sonkar, R.K et a! (1999a). Abst. Int. symp. on Citrleulture held at NRC for Citrus. :'-Jagpur. p 63.Sonkar, RK. et al. (2001). Ann. Rep. (2000-2001) NRC tor Citrus. Nagpur pp 5:~-61.

Sonkar. R.K and Marathe. RA. (1999). Ann. Rep. (1998-1999) NRC for Citrus. Nagpur.53-62.Sonkar, R.K and Marathe, R.A. (2000). Ann. Rep. (1999-2000) NRC for Citrus. Nagpur pp 53-61.Srivastava. KC. and Bopaih. M.G. (1978). Punjab Hart. J 18.139-141Shaked A. et a! (1995) Proe. lnt. Soc. Citri. Italy: 304-306.Sukhbir et a! (1999) Abst. Int. Symp. on Citrculture held at NRC for Citrus, Nagpur. p 65-66.Tayade. G.s. eta! (1985) PKVRes: J 9.74-76.Tayade, GS et a! (1988). PKV Res. J 12 • 40-44.Tayade. G.S. eta! (1995). PKVRes. J 19.140-142.Tuzcu. O. etal. (1997). Proc. of the 5th ISCNlntern. Congr. 1997: 75-8J.Valbuene. H. (1996). Revista de la faculared de Agronomia 13 • 139-151.Vijaykumar, RM. et a! (1990). South Indian Hart. 38 • 38-39.Vijaykumar. RM. (1989). South Indian Hart. 32 • 67-70.Vijayakumar, RM. eta! (1989). South Indian Hart. 37.67-70Wutscher. HK (1979). HortJcultural Reviews 1. 237 - 269Wutscher. HK (1977). Hart. Science 12.478-485.Wutscher. HK and Hill. LL (1995). Hart. Science 30 41-43.Zekeri. M. (1997). Fruits (Paris) 52 .141-148.Zhang GL (1993) China Fruits 22 • 21-22Zhonping C and Bihou. Z (1996). South China Fruits 25 • 16-18.

109