SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION28. LS irrigation in 2005 significantly depressed the leaf proline content compared to HS in 2004. This was obvious with all experimental trees.29. The LS irrigation in 2005 decreased stomatal density (i.e. number of stomata / cm2 of leaf blade as compared with HS in 2004, which may be due to the expansion of leaf area. This was partienlarly clear with BO leaves. In addition LS water (2005) increased the percentages of opened stomata with all experimental trees as compared with HS in 2004.30. The LS water (2005) clearly increased the leaf K content in BO leaves as compared with HS water (2004). In addition LS water (2005) obviously depressed leaf Cl contents in all experimental trees as compared with HS water (2004), but failed to affect significantly leaf N, P and Na contents in all experimental trees.Flowering and Fruiting31. The effect of LS water (2005) was clear on leafy inflorescences and solitary flowers as compared with HS water (2004). Leafless inflorescences revealed slight response to using LS water (2005) after HS water (2004). The LS water (2005) increased number of leafy inflorescences per branch of BO and on-year BM as compared with HS water (2004). In addition, LS water (2005) increased number of flowers per leafy inflorescences, but only with BO. Moreover, LS water increased the numbers of set fruits from solitary flowers as compared with HS water (2004). This was true with all experimental trees.32. The number of fruits, the yield per tree and the hypothetic yield per fed. were greatly increased by LS water in 2005 as compared with HS water in 2004. BO tree gave 122.73 fruits weighting 23.69 kg in 2005 against 80.70 fruits weighting 11.17 kg in 2004. The corresponding values for on-year BM tree were 261.87 fruits weighing 26.56 kg in 2005 against 127.70 fruits weighing 13.00 kg in 2004. The off-year BM tree gave 46.63 fruits weighing 6.46 kg in 2005 against 23.40 fruits weighing 2.67 kg in 2004.33. The effect of LS water (2005), as compared with HS water (2004), on fruit physical properties was much were clear with BO rather than on- and off-year BM trees; with BO, the LS water (2005) greatly improved the fruit, peel & pulp weights and juice weight & volume per fruit.34. In comparison with HS water (2004), LS water (2005) did not affect significantly TSS% with BO and on-year BM trees, while depressed it with off-year BM. In addition, LS water did not affect juice acidity of BO, while, depressed it in juice of on- and off-year BM. The TSS / acid ratio was, generally, improved by LS water (2005) in comparison with HS water (2004). Ascorbic acid content of BO juice was reduced by LS (2005) as compared with HS (2004); but this much less clear with on- and off-year BM juice.Characteristics of Fibrous Roots35. LS irrigation (2005) enhanced the yearly increases in weight and length of fibrous roots, but only with BO. In addition, LS water (2005) obviously promoted horizontal extension of fibrous roots of all experimental trees as compared with HS water (2004).36. Significant increments were observed in N % of on- and off-year BM, P% of off-year BM and K% of BO trees, in response to LS water (2005) as compared with HS water (2004). Also, LS water (2005) depressed fibrous roots Cl contents with all experimental trees and Na content with off-year BM as compared with HS water (2004).Soil Under Experimental trees37. HS water obviously increased soil contents of TDS (total dissolved salts), Na and Cl contents, while decreased soil N and K contents, in comparison with LS water. Moreover, the most superficial soil layer (0-30 cm) always revealed lower TDS, Na and Cl contents in comparison with deeper soil layers.In conclusion, results of the present work on BO and BM trees obviously cleared that HS (3622 ppm) irrigation ( water in 2003 &2004) depressed vegetative growth, i.e. tree and shoot vigor and leaf activates, most of flowering and fruiting activities as well as physical and chemical properties of fibrous roots, in comparison with LS irrigation water (817 ppm). However, using LS water in 2005 for irrigation of BO and BM previously stunted by HS water in 2003 & 2004, greatly improved most of, if not all, vegetative flowering and fruiting and fibrous roots characteristics of the tested, BO and BM trees.These results point out that, under conditions similar to those prevailed in the present work, BO and BM tree suffering form saline water ( up to 3622 ppm) can be successfully improved if a new source of LS irrigation water ( e.g. a new well, or Nile water ) would be available. In such cases, eradication of salt- stunted citrus orchards is not needed.VI. LITERATURE CITEDAhmed, R. B. (1982). Studies on physiological and histological responses of Ficus carica L. transplants to salinity. M.Sc. Thesis, Hort. Depart., Fac. Of Agriculture, Zagazig Univ.Alva, AK. and JP. Syvertsen. (1991-a). Irrigation water salinity affects soil nutrient distribution, root density, and leaf nutrient levels of citrus under drip fertigation. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 14: 7, 715-727.Alva, AK. and JP. Syvertsen. (1991-b). Soil and citrus tree nutrition are affected by salinized irrigation water. Proceedings of the 104th annual meeting of the Florida State Horticultural Society, Miami Beach, Florida, 29-31 Oct. 1991. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. 104: 135-138, CAB Abstracts, 1983/01-2005/12 (comp. search).A.O.A.C. (1950). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, official and tentative methods of analysis. 5th ed. XII. Washington, D. C., U.S.A., pp. 757.A.O.A.C. (1975). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Twelfth edition, Washington, D. C., USA.Awtar-Singh; M. L. Saini and R. K. Behl.(2004). Seed germination and seedling growth of citrus (Citrus species) rootstocks under different salinity regimes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 74:5, 246-248.Ayoub, S. T. and F. A. Minessy. (1974). Studies on salt tolerance of Marsh Seedless grapefruit and Bearss lime.Bacha. M. A. and E. M. EL-Azab. (1976). The influence of three sodium salts on the