This study has been carried out during the years of 2003, 2004 and 2005. In the first part ( Part I) of the work (2003 & 2004), mature Balady orange (BO) and Balady mandarin (BM) trees grown in sandy soil in a private farm in Sharkia Gavernorate received artesian irrigation water from two wells; one well gave higher salinity (HS) water (3622 ppm) while the other gave lower salinity (LS) water (817 ppm). The experiment comprised 18 BO trees, 18 on-year BM trees and 18 off-year BM trees. As such, 9 trees of each group (3 reps × 3 trees / rep. = 9) received HS irrigation and the other 9 trees received LS irrigation water. The main goal of this part of the work (part I) was to compare vegetative and fruiting behavior of BO and BM trees under two distinct levels of irrigation water salinity under the usual conditions on commercial citrus groves.The second part (Part II) of this work was carried out in 2005 on BO and BM trees previously stunted by HS irrigation in 2003 and 2004. The main goal of this part of the work was to measure the degree of recovery in vegetative and fruiting behavior of BO and BM trees by LS irrigation in 2005 as compared with their behavior under HS irrigation in 2004.The most important results were summarized as follows:Part I. Effect of salinity level on BO and BM TreesTree and shoot vigor1. Tree vigor was seriously affected by HS water. This was obvious with all tree vigor parameters (height, diameter, and circumference) and particularly the canopy volume which lost 97.1 & 98.4%, 92.1 & 98.2 % and 90.7 & 92.0 % for BO, on-year BM and off-year BM respectively under HS in the two seasons in comparison with LS.2. Shoot vigor was depressed by HS water; this was apparent with shoot length, thickness and number off shoots / branch. The shoot length lost 66.9 & 69.1% for BO, 31.9 % for on-year BM in the second season and 43.0 & 45.0 % for off-year BM under HS water in the two seasons as compared with LS water.Leaf parameters3. The numbers of new and old leaves per shoot were clearly depressed by HS water compared to LS water. The losses in number of new leaves by HS water attained 39.5 & 47.9 % for BO, 32.1 & 30.7 % for on-year BM and 38.6 & 40.2 % for off-year BM in the two seasons as compared with LS water. The corresponding values for losses in old leaves were; 38.8 & 44.7 % for BO; and 32.8 % for off-year BM in the second season while it was insignificant for on-year BM in the two seasons.4. The area and fresh weight of mature leaves of off-year BM trees revealed remarkable reductions under HS water compared with LS one. The losses by HS water in leaf area attained 35.4 & 40.5 % for BO and 30.3 % for off-year BM in the first season while it was insignificant for on-year BM in the two seasons as compared with LS water. The corresponding values for losses in leaf fresh weight were: 35.5 & 40.5 % for BO and 28.1& 28.9 % for off-year BM while it was insignificant for on-year BM in the two seasons as compared with LS water.5. The leaf dry matter (DM) % was always higher with HS than with LS. The HS leaf DM gained 1.7 & 1.9 % for BO and 2.6 & 3.1 % for on-year BM in the two seasons as compared with LS while it was 1.6 % for off-year BM in the second season while the first season was not significant.6. The leaf total and free water contents were obviously depressed, while the leaf bound water content was enhanced by HS as compared with LS. This trend was clear with both BO and BM in the two experimental seasons.7. The leaf chlorophyll contents (a & b) were depressed by HS in comparison with LS. On the contrary, HS promoted leaf carotenoids content. This was clear with both BO and BM in both seasons.8. HS increased stomatal density, i.e. number of stomata / cm2 of leaf area, while depressed the percentage of opened stomata as compared with LS. This came true with both BO and BM in both seasons.9. The leaf proline, Na and Cl contents were always higher under HS as compared with LS.Flowering and Fruiting10. The number of leafy inflorescences and solitary flowers / branch were clearly depressed by HS compared to LS. BO branch lost 51.3 & 51.2 % of leafy inflorescences and 41.5 & 35.6 % of solitary flowers in the two seasons compared to LS. The corresponding values for on-year BM were 49.1 & 46.1 % and 62.2 & 61.8 %, respectively. On the other hand, HS enhanced number of leafless inflorescences on BO trees only by 160.9 & %170.0 % in the two seasons as compared with LS. Worth while, off-year BM trees produced only solitary flowers.11. The numbers of set fruits on leafy inflorescences and from solitary flowers were greatly depressed by HS. With BO the losses in numbers of set fruits by HS were 03.8 & 20.6 % for leafy inflorescences and 68.2 & 67.1 % for solitary flowers in the two seasons, as compared with LS. The corresponding values for on-year BM were: 40.9 & 43.9 % for leafy inflorescences and 81.8 & 81.7 % for solitary flowers in the two seasons.12. Under HS the number of harvested fruits per tree lost 43.6 & 50.5 % with BO, 84.2 & 77.5 % with on-year BM and 63.3 &75.3 % with off-year BM trees in the two seasons.13. The losses in BO yield by HS attained 65.4 & 67.1 % as compared with LS in the two seasons. The corresponding values for BM trees were 82.5 & 74.8 % in the on-years and 69.9 &79.4 % in the off-years.14. BO fruit lost 32.0 & 33.5 % of its weight by HS in the two seasons while the losses with BM were insignificant in both seasons.15. HS enhanced juice TSS and acidity contents in BO and on-year BM juice as compared with LS; the TSS/acid ratio was slightly affected. TSS losses 2.3 % for BO only with the first season while the second season was insignificant and gained 1.6 & 1.6 % for on-year BM in comparison with LS in the two seasons. Acidity gained 0.3 % for BO in the first season while the second season was insignificant and 0.2 & 0.2 % for on-year BM compared with LS in the two seasons.16. Ascorbic acid contents of BO, on-off-year BM juice were obviously higher under HS compared with LS. The gained increment due to HS were: 36.8 & 36.6 % with BO, 21.9 & 14.2% with on-year BM and 36.2 & 35.8 % with off-year BM, in the two seasons.Fibrous Roots Indices17. HS irrigation reduced the yearly increases in weight and total length of fibrous roots in the superficial soil layer (0-30 cm from soil surface), as compared with LS water, while increased weight and total length of fibrous root in the deeper soil layer (30-60 cm ). As such, HS encouraged deeper penetration of BO, on-year and off-year BM.18. on the contrary, HS water depressed the yearly increases in horizontal extension of fibrous roots as compared with LS water.19. Under HS, roots of all experimental trees (BO, on-year and off-year BM), generally, revealed lower N and K contents. P content was increased by HS in BO roots as compared with LS, the opposite was noticed with on- and off-year BM. However, HS water increased Na and Cl contents in roots of all experimental trees (BO, on-& off-year BM), as compared with LS water.Part II. Recovery of Growth and Fruiting Activities of Trees Suffered from Salinity in 2003 & 2004 by LS Irrigation in 2005Tree and Shoot vigor20. The increase in tree growth in 2005 expressed as the yearly increase in tree canopy volume, attained 1400.0 % with BO, 433.3 % with on-year BM and 262.5 % with off-year BM, as compared with values recorded in 2004 under HS. Also, the promotion in shoot vigor, expressed as shoot length, reached 144.8 % with BO, 296.8 % with on-year BM and 54.5 % with off-year BM, as compared with values recorded in 2004 under HS.Leaf Parameters21. The numbers of new leaves under LS in 2005 was greater than the recorded under HS in 2004 by 50.5 % for BO, 77.1 % for on-year BM and 51.9 % for off-year BM. the corresponding percentages for the increments in numbers of old leaves were; 28.1 % with on-year BM and 57.5 % with off-year BM while it was insignificant with BO.22. The area of mature leaves under LS in 2005 was higher than that recorded under HS in 2004 by 54.9 % for BO and 20.1% for off-year BM while it was insignificant with on-year BM.23. The fresh weights of leaves under LS in 2005 were higher than these recorded under HS in 2004 by 55.0 % with BO and 24.9 % with off-year BM while it was insignificant with on-year BM.24. The osmotic pressure of the leaf sap under LS in 2005 was lower than that recorded under HS in 2004, but the differences were significant only with BO and on-year BM.25. The leaf dry matter percentages were always lower with LS in 2005 as compared with HS in 2004.26. Using LS water in 2005 enhanced the leaf total and free water contents as compared with HS water in 2004. On the contrary, LS water in 2005 depressed the bound water content in comparison with HS water in 2004. This was true for all experimental trees (BO on-& off-year BM).27. All experimental trees failed to show significant differences in leaf photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a& b and carotenoides) between HS (2004) and LS (2005), except for the increase in carotenoids in off-year BM leaves with LS water in 2005 compared to HS in 2004.3- Cost requirement for different drying products.The cost of the different drying system is dependent on many factors due to drying conditions and drying system.the hourly cost for dryer and sun drying by trays were 0.14 and 0.12L.E./h.Cost values of drying mint were 3.31 and 5.97 (L.E./ton) under developed dryer and sun drying by trays.Cost values of drying onion, were 2.0 and 2.54l.E./ ton under developed dryer and sun drying by trays.6:RECONNENDATIONSIn order to minimize drying cost, it is recommended to use the developed solar-wind dryer for drying mint and onion under the following conditions:1: Using fan combination unit with 6 blades (F1).2: Using the air inlite gate a2 (0.960 m2 ).3: Mass of product of (1764 and 4333g ) with mint and onionrespectively.