Next Article in Journal
Mixing Compost and Biochar Can Enhance the Chemical and Biological Recovery of Soils Contaminated by Potentially Toxic Elements
Next Article in Special Issue
Unlocking the Potential of Pepper Plants under Salt Stress: Mycorrhizal Effects on Physiological Parameters Related to Plant Growth and Gas Exchange across Tolerant and Sensitive Genotypes
Previous Article in Journal
GhAGL16 (AGAMOUS-LIKE16) Negatively Regulates Tolerance to Water Deficit in Transgenic Arabidopsis and Cotton
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Biostimulant Based on Silicon Chelates Enhances Growth and Modulates Physiological Responses of In-Vitro-Derived Strawberry Plants to In Vivo Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/plants13020283
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot as Biostimulant Agent to Alleviate Salt Stress in Durum Wheat: Preliminary Results from Germination Trials

by
Angelo Rossini
1,
Roberto Ruggeri
1,
Nada Mzid
1,
Francesco Rossini
1,* and
Giuseppe Di Miceli
2
1
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences, University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
2
Department of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Sciences (SAAF), University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Ed. 5, 90128 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(2), 283; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020283
Submission received: 15 December 2023 / Revised: 15 January 2024 / Accepted: 16 January 2024 / Published: 18 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Biostimulants in Sustainable Horticulture and Agriculture: Development, Function, and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil salinization is a critical environmental problem in arid and semiarid regions of the world. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of an algae-based biostimulant on germination and seedling vigour of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn.), under different saline conditions (0, 100, and 200 mM NaCl). The experiment was carried out under controlled-environment conditions. Seeds were sprayed with a solution containing a combination of fungicide and different concentrations of Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot algae (0%w/v, 10%w/v, 20%w/v, and 30%w/v). All experimental units were placed in a germination cabinet. The effect of the seaweed extract (SWE) on seed germination and seedling performance under salinity stress was evaluated over a period of 8 days. Coleoptile length and biomass were found to be significantly and positively affected by the application of different SWE doses as compared to the control treatment (0% algae). As for germination traits, seeds treated with SWE showed a final germination (from 82% to 88%), under severe saline conditions, significantly higher than that observed in the control treatment (61%). Our findings indicate that the appropriate dose of biostimulant can markedly improve the germination and the seedlings vigour of durum wheat seeds under saline conditions. Additional studies will be needed to understand the mechanism of action of this biostimulant and its effectiveness in longer studies under field conditions.

1. Introduction

Soil salinization is one of the major factors contributing to the loss of agricultural productivity [1]. Every year, around 10 million hectares of world agricultural land are degraded by salinity [2]. In Europe, salt-affected soils cover an area of about 31 million ha, particularly concentrated in the Mediterranean Basin [3,4,5]. Salinization due to seawater intrusion, or due to irrigation with poor quality water, is cause of serious concern in rural areas of Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain [4,6]. In the European Union alone, 1 million hectares are affected by soil salinity [7]. It was estimated that 25% of irrigated Mediterranean cropland is prone to moderate or high salinization [8], and by 2050, 50% of the world’s arable land will be subjected to salinity [9]. High concentrations of salts have detrimental effects on crop development, especially in the phases of seed germination and seedling growth [10,11,12].
Among cereals, wheat represents the staple crop for 40% of the world’s population, with a current annual production of 790.6 million tons [13], particularly for people living in Europe, North America, the Western and Northern parts of Asia, and the Americas [14]. Although durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn.) accounts for a small proportion of the global wheat production (around 7%), it has ever been a crucial commodity for countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea [15]. Durum wheat was used as the model plant because of its importance as a crop in arid and semiarid areas of the Mediterranean Basin [16], and because is one of the most salt-sensitive cereal crops, especially during seed germination [17,18,19,20,21]. A high salinity level can result in 50% grain yield reduction [22]. Salt tolerance during germination and seedling establishment is fundamental for the future development and growth of crops, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas [20,23]. For that reason, studies aiming to find a sustainable way to guarantee a satisfying yield in moderately saline soils are not only warranted but also strongly sought after [24,25].
World population growth and climate change are severely threatening the global food security and environmental sustainability [26,27]. Therefore, the ambitious target of the primary sector for the future (and present) is to produce more food while impacting less on natural resources. In agriculture, efforts are being made in different directions including the reduction of chemical fertilizers’ use [28,29,30]. In this context, biostimulants are receiving a lot of attention from both researchers and farmers as natural substances able to enhance crop performances [31,32,33]. The use of biostimulants to alleviate the effects of abiotic stressors such as salinity is a promising frontier for crop management.
Biostimulants, especially seaweed extracts (SWE), showed good results in promoting seed germination and seedlings vigour of different plant species under both optimal and saline conditions [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. The positive effect is probably due to the high content of phytohormones, which tend to play a major role in seed germination [45]. However, few studies have been conducted until now on the effect of SWE on seed germination of durum wheat under saline conditions. Moreover, indications on the optimal dose of SWE-based biostimulants for seed treatments are scarce in the scientific literature. Hydropriming proves to be the method most used to treat seeds in experimental trials. However, this technique, consisting of soaking seed for a period in a solution containing a certain amount of SWE [46], does not represent a viable method for large-scale applications in seed industry because primed seeds are extremely difficult to manage [47]. Therefore, methods of delivering biostimulants as seed coatings, possibly together with other active ingredients, need to be explored to speed the technology transfer [48].
Among algae species from which SWE are obtained, Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot, a green seaweed that lives in some salt marshes located in Tunisia, is one of the most invasive of the Mediterranean coasts [49,50]. Some studies showed promising results derived from the application of Codium spp. extract to enhance seed germination and seedlings performance of different crop species [46,51,52,53].
The objective of this study was to assess the effect of different concentrations of Codium fragile extract (0%w/v, 10%w/v, 20%w/v, and 30%w/v) delivered as a seed coating on germination and early development of durum wheat seeds, under optimal (0 mM NaCl) and rising saline conditions (100 and 200 mM NaCl). In particular, the following hypotheses were tested: (i) seed treatment with SWE improves germination features and seedling vigour as compared to control and, above all, under salt stress conditions; (ii) the effect is proportional to the applied dose.
To verify these hypotheses, an experiment under controlled environment conditions was set up, randomizing the different treatments (salinity levels and SWE application doses) within the germination cabinet and evaluating germination and seedling traits at the completion of the trial.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Algal Collection and Extract Preparation

Codium fragile was collected in the salt marshes of South-East Tunisia. Samples were washed several times, first with fresh water and then with distilled water, air-dried, cut into pieces, and finally powdered with a mixed grinder. Ten grams of the obtained powder were suspended with 1 L of distilled water under continuous stirring at 300 rpm with a heating magnetic stirrer for 2 h at 50 °C [54]. Subsequently, the sample was put into an ultrasonic extractor for 45 min, then filtered using Whatman No. 1 filter paper to obtain 100% algal extract and stored at 4 °C for further analysis and treatments [55].

2.2. Experimental Design

Three different artificial growth conditions were used during the experiment:
  • OPTIMAL: 0 mM of NaCl, control treatment;
  • MID-SALINE: 100 mM of NaCl, a salinity level at which wheat begins to experience distress [56];
  • HIGH-SALINE: 200 mM of NaCl, a salinity level considered an extreme condition [57].
Durum wheat seeds (cultivar Monastir) were selected for apparent uniformity in size and shape and treated with a solution containing the following ingredients:
  • A liquid fungicide, usually used for cereals coating in Europe, at a dose of 200 g for 100 kg of seed, containing 2.34% Fludioxonil, 2.34% Difenoconazole, and 0.93% Tebuconazole;
  • Codium fragile extract at 10 g dry matter (gdm) L−1;
  • Distilled water.
Monastir was chosen because it is a modern durum wheat cultivar extensively cultivated around the Mediterranean basin [58] and it is reported to be a cultivar with medium susceptibility to salinity stress [24].
Four seed dressing solutions were prepared, changing just the amount of Codium fragile extract as follows: control (0%w/v), 100 g of Codium fragile extract (at 10 gdm L−1 algae concentration) per 1 L of dressing solution (10%w/v), 200 g of Codium fragile extract (at 10 gdm L−1 algae concentration) per 1 L of dressing solution (20%w/v), and 300 g of Codium fragile extract (at 10 gdm L−1 algae concentration) per 1 L of dressing solution (30%w/v). These four treatments were applied for each growth condition and respecting the application rate of 1 kg solution per 100 kg seed to be industrially viable. Seed treatment was applied by mixing 1 g of dressing solution with 100 g of seeds and shaking them in a weighing bottle. The choice of these percentages was based on reference values found in the literature [51] and with the aim of discovering a possible dose–response effect and to find the best application dose. Four replicates (each consisting of 100 seeds) were used for each treatment. The treated seeds were placed into a Petri dish (120 mm diameter), with three layers of Whatman Grade 1 filter paper, soaked in the different saline solutions, and left for 4 days in a seed germination cabinet, in dark conditions, at a constant temperature of 20 ± 1 °C [59]. The Petri dishes were randomly allocated within the cabinet. After 4 days, every replicate was transferred into another Petri dish with three new layers of filter paper soaked in the same saline solutions in order to maintain a constant salinity level, and then put back in the germination cabinet at the same temperature for another 4 days, thus obtaining a total germination time of 8 days.

2.3. Measured Traits

Germination was determined based on radicle emergence. The germinated seeds of each replicate were counted every day to calculate the following:
  • Final germination percentage: (seeds germinated/total seeds) × 100, after 8 days;
  • T50: time to achieve 50% of final/maximum germination [60], calculated according to the following formula [61,62]:
T 50 = t i + ( N 2 − n i ) ( t j − t i ) ( n j − n i )
where N is the final number of germinated seeds and nj and ni are the cumulative number of seeds germinated by adjacent counts at times tj and ti, respectively, when ni < N/2 < nj;
  • Germination time course.
At the end of the experiment (after 8 days), all germinated seeds were analysed, and the following parameters were measured for each replicate:
  • Number of roots, manually counted;
  • Length of the main root (cm), measured with a ruler;
  • Coleoptile length (cm), measured with a ruler;
  • Root biomass (dry weight, g), for which all the roots of each replicate were separated from the germinated seeds and dried off for 2 days at 60 °C;
  • Coleoptile biomass (dry weight, g), for which all the coleoptiles of each replicate were separated from the germinated seeds and dried off for 2 days at 60 °C.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Germination data were analysed as time-to-event data, thus allowing a better interpretation of germination experiments [63]. Specifically, relevant parameter estimates (e.g., T50 and final germination) and corresponding standard errors were extracted according to the event-time approach by fitting a three-parameter log-logistic model to data from each germination curve separately [64]. The model equation used in this study was as follows:
F ( T ) = d 1 + exp ⁡ [ b log ⁡ T − log ⁡ T 50 ]
where d denotes the proportion of seeds that germinated during the experiment (upper limit or final maximum germination) and T50 is the time (number of days) to reach 50% of final germination. The parameter b is proportional to the slope of F at time T equal to the parameter T50.
Quantitative data obtained from germinated seeds were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the effect of salinity, SWE, and their interaction. Significantly different means were separated at the 95% probability level using Fisher’s protected least significant difference.
Statistical analysis was carried out using the open-source environment R [65] with the add-on packages ‘drcte’, for event-time models [66].

3. Results

3.1. Germination Percentage and Median Germination Time (T50)

As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, the priming with SWE strongly influenced the germination performance of durum wheat seeds, especially at high salinity. The application of SWE in the control treatment allowed seeds to significantly enhance their final germination. Specifically, final germination increased by 3% at 10% SWE concentration, by 4% at 20% SWE concentration, and by 5% at 30% SWE concentration. At the medium salinity level (100 mM NaCl), the seeds primed at 20% and 30% SWE concentration reached a final germination (96%) significantly higher than that of the control and the treatment with the lowest SWE concentration (90 and 93%, respectively).
The effect of the seed treatment dramatically increased at the highest salinity level (200 mM NaCl). Indeed, under that growth condition, while all the treated seeds showed a final germination percentage ranging from 82% (10% SWE) to 88% (30% SWE), untreated seeds stopped around 61% germination rate.
As for median germination time, expressed as T50, the SWE coating did not significantly affect the seeds’ response in optimal conditions. Conversely, at medium and high salinity levels, the median germination time of the seeds treated with SWE was significantly reduced as compared to that of the control treatment, except for 20% SWE at 200 mM NaCl.

3.2. Number of Roots

As shown in Table 2, the number of seminal roots was significantly influenced by both SWE and salinity. In more detail, salinity markedly reduced the number of roots, which dropped from 5.6 at optimal conditions to 5.0 and 2.67 at medium and high salt concentrations, respectively (Figure 2A); meanwhile, the application of Codium fragile extracts significantly increased the number of roots as compared to the control (up to 12%), irrespective of dose (Figure 2B).

3.3. Length of the Main Root

As with the number of seminal roots, the length of the main root was also significantly affected by salinity and SWE application (Table 2). Salinity reduced the root length by 37% at 100 mM NaCl and by 67% at 200 mM NaCl (Figure 3A). The presence of Codium fragile extract in the seed coating markedly increased the root length by 27% at the lowest SWE dose (from 4.8 cm to 6.1 cm) and by 33% at the highest one (from 4.8 cm to 6.4 cm), with a significantly different effect between these two SWE concentrations (Figure 3B).

3.4. Root Biomass

As reported in Table 2, root biomass was significantly influenced by both treatments, like the previously reported traits. Specifically, the increasing salt concentration produced a 26% (from 0.61 g to 0.45 g) and 66% (from 0.61 g to 0.21 g) reduction of root dry weight (Figure 4A). The application of SWE increased root biomass by 35% and 42% at the lowest and highest concentrations, respectively (Figure 4B). No significant difference was detected applying SWE at 20% or 30% concentration.

3.5. Coleoptile Length

The interaction between treatments was found to be significant for this trait (Table 2). As shown in Figure 5, the application of Codium fragile extract was greatly effective for the control treatment (+60% in coleoptile length) and at medium salt stress conditions (coleoptile length doubled), while no remarkable benefit was detected under high salt stress conditions. As previously observed for the other traits, the increase in salt stress severely hindered the development of wheat coleoptile.

3.6. Coleoptile Biomass

The interaction between treatments significantly affected coleoptile total biomass (Table 2). The increase in salt concentration strongly reduced the biomass, moving from an average of 0.4 g for the optimal conditions to 0.23 g for 100 mM NaCl and 0.11 g for 200 mM NaCl (Figure 6). The application of SWE increased the performance in all growth conditions. In optimal conditions, all the biostimulant-coated seeds had a higher biomass compared to the control, with a 52% increase. At the medium salinity level, the application of 20% and 30% SWE enhanced the biomass weight compared with the 10% SWE. However, all the SWE-treated seeds performed significantly better than the control. At the high salinity level (200 mM NaCl), all the seed coating treatments enhanced the coleoptile’s biomass by 79% as compared to the control.

4. Discussion

According to our first hypothesis, the Codium fragile extract significantly enhanced seed germination and seedlings development in each growing condition, especially under salt stress. Conversely, the second hypothesis was not verified since, in most of the measured traits, there is not a clear dose–response effect for the application of Codium fragile extract. This means that the SWE is effective also at lower doses.
Furthermore, the results showed that the seed coating can be a viable way to deliver SWE and so it could be applied at an industrial scale too.
According to our findings, seed germination in durum wheat appeared to be stable until medium salt stress (100 mM NaCl), while it was reduced by 30% under high salt stress conditions (200 mM NaCl). This result agrees with other studies found in the literature [67,68,69,70]. Even though final germination at 100 mM NaCl did not differ from that of optimal conditions, seeds evidenced a longer median germination time (T50) and a lower coleoptile length. That negative effect will certainly lead to a plant being more susceptible to biotic and abiotic stresses, thus reducing yield and grain quality [22,71,72,73]. A fast and uniform seed germination, combined with a high seedling vigour, are the fundamental traits used to assess salt tolerance in crops [39,73,74].
Generally, the application of SWE significantly enhanced all the measured traits, except for the coleoptile length under high salt stress. Even though literature on this specific research topic is limited, the positive effect of SWE, and especially of Codium spp. extract, in promoting wheat germination (also in controlled salinity conditions) are reported in other studies [51,52]. Codium spp., as other macroalgae, appear to be rich in phytohormones such as cytokinin, gibberellins, and auxins [75,76,77]. These bioactive compounds are certainly involved in the germination process, and their presence can stimulate the metabolic process in wheat seeds [78,79,80]. Auxins seem to play a major role in promoting seed germination and seedlings development under salt stress conditions. Even though these plant growth regulators are fundamental for the early development of the plants, the stored auxins are not sufficient to guarantee a good stem and roots formation, especially under salt stress [79]. Indeed, plants rapidly decrease the production of auxins during salt stress, triggering down the auxin biosynthesis pathways [81]. Thus, the application of endogenous auxins could fulfil the plants’ requirements for wheat germination and seedlings development [79,82]. In addition to that, these phytohormones appear to promote tissue regeneration and limit the uptake and assimilation of toxic mineral elements [79,83]. The cytokinins are also involved in the salt stress regulation, especially in the early stage of the seedling’s development [84]. It has been reported that salinity significantly reduces the cytokinins’ export from the root to the shoot [85]; therefore, an exogenous application of cytokinins could lead to a better development of the wheat seedlings under salt stress conditions [80]. Additionally, the SWE tested contains amino acids such as proline and glycine betaine [51,52,86]. These two amino acids are well known to enhance crop resistance to drought and salt stress [87,88,89]. Glycine betaine seems to reduce toxic ions’ absorption, protecting ion channels and favourably influencing the properties of the cell membrane. This mechanism greatly favours ion homeostasis under salinity stress [90]. As for proline, this amino acid has proven to limit the negative impact of the salt stress thanks to its role as an osmoprotectant, membrane stabilizer, and scavenger of reactive oxygen species [91,92]. The strong effect of the Codium fragile extract is probably due to the combination of these different active compounds that, through different modes of action, confer to durum wheat seedlings a greater tolerance to salt stress. Other studies reported that priming seeds with SWE leads to an improved antioxidant enzyme activity [42]. The seed coating with SWE has also led to a general reduction in germination time, especially under salt stress conditions. Again, this effect could be explained by the presence of phytohormones in the Codium fragile extract, as these compounds are able to promote the creation of hydrolytic enzymes and are inhibitors of abscisic acid [93].
As expected, the seedlings’ vigour was negatively affected by salinity. In particular, the coleoptile and the root system showed a strong reduction in terms of both length and total dry biomass, even under medium salt stress. This result is consistent with other studies conducted on winter cereals, reporting a different reduction of root length (from 20% to 97%) and dry biomass (from 60% to 70%), depending on the salinity level and the different growing conditions. A similar effect has been shown in shoot length, with reduction rates ranging from 36% to 92% [69,94,95,96]. However, the application of Codium fragile extract, especially at the highest doses, was able to alleviate the salt stress, as evidenced by the improved length and biomass of the coleoptile in SWE-treated seeds. Compared to the control treatment, the application of SWE markedly promoted the development of the root system. A similar positive effect on shoots and roots was observed also in other crops such as tomato, okra, etc. [36,42,97]. It is well known that biostimulants, especially seaweed extracts, can increase crop development, even in stress conditions [33]. This effect is likely due to the presence of phytohormones, as well as the content of macro- and micronutrients. In particular, in Codium species, the effect can be due to the presence of elements such as calcium and zinc [86,98]. The exogenous application of these two elements resulted in a general enhancement of the germination percentage and seedling vigour [99,100,101].

5. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Seed treatment with biostimulants is still a relatively under-explored research topic, but it appears extremely interesting. Our study clearly demonstrated that seed coating with a Codium fragile extract was effective in enhancing seed germination and early vigour of the durum wheat cultivar Monastir, both under optimal (0 mM NaCl) and salt stress conditions (100 and 200 mM NaCl). A prompt and uniform seedling emergence, combined with a better rooting, can make crop species more tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses. Moreover, the application of seaweed extracts could be a promising way to decrease the use of synthetic fertilizers in agriculture, without negatively affecting yield potential. The future investigation into all these aspects can greatly improve our understanding of sustainable management of durum wheat. Additional studies will be necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanism of action of this biostimulant. Moreover, since we reported results from a germination trial only, several field experiments will be needed to evaluate the effects on plants during the entire growing cycle, under different soils and climatic conditions. In that way, we will also be able to explore other Codium fragile application methods, such as foliar spraying or soil treatments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R. and F.R.; methodology, R.R. and G.D.M.; formal analysis, A.R., F.R., N.M. and R.R.; investigation, A.R. and G.D.M.; resources, F.R.; data curation, A.R. and R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. and R.R.; writing—review and editing, F.R. and G.D.M.; visualization, F.R.; supervision, R.R. and F.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was conducted as activity of the PhD course in “Plant and Animal Production Sciences (XXXVIII cycle)” of the University of Tuscia and was co-funded by PNRR, Missione 4, componente 2 “Dalla Ricerca all’Impresa”—Investimento 3.3 and ISLA srl.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Fakir Mathlouthi (FBSM Nanobiology, Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 36, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany) for technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

SWEseaweed extract
0% SWEseed dressing solution containing 0 g of Codium fragile extract
10% SWEseed dressing solution containing 100 g of Codium fragile extract
20% SWEseed dressing solution containing 200 g of Codium fragile extract
30% SWEseed dressing solution containing 300 g of Codium fragile extract
T50median germination time

References

  1. Minhas, P.S.; Ramos, T.B.; Ben-Gal, A.; Pereira, L.S. Coping with Salinity in Irrigated Agriculture: Crop Evapotranspiration and Water Management Issues. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 227, 105832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pimentel, D.; Berger, B.; Filiberto, D.; Newton, M.; Wolfe, B.; Karabinakis, E.; Clark, S.; Poon, E.; Abbett, E.; Nandagopal, S. Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues. Bioscience 2004, 54, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jones, A.; Panagos, P.; Erhard, M.; Tóth, G.; Barcelo, S.; Bouraoui, F.; Bosco, C.; Dewitte, O.; Gardi, C.; Hervás, J.; et al. The State of Soil in Europe: A Contribution of the JRC to the European Environment Agency’s Environment State and Outlook Report—SOER 2010; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2012; ISBN 9789279228063. [Google Scholar]
  4. Daliakopoulos, I.N.; Tsanis, I.K.; Koutroulis, A.; Kourgialas, N.N.; Varouchakis, A.E.; Karatzas, G.P.; Ritsema, C.J. The Threat of Soil Salinity: A European Scale Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 727–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Corwin, D.L. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Salinity in Agricultural Areas. Eur. J. Soil. Sci. 2021, 72, 842–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Machado, R.M.A.; Serralheiro, R.P. Soil Salinity: Effect on Vegetable Crop Growth. Management Practices to Prevent and Mitigate Soil Salinization. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stolte, J.; Tesfai, M.; Øygarden, L.; Kværnø, S.; Keizer, J.; Verheijen, F.; Panagos, P.; Ballabio, C.; Hessel, R. Soil Threats in Europe: Status, Methods, Drivers and Effects on Ecosystem Services. A Review Report, Deliverable 2.1 of the RECARE Project; European Commission DG Joint Research Centre: Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferreira, C.S.S.; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S.; Destouni, G.; Ghajarnia, N.; Kalantari, Z. Soil Degradation in the European Mediterranean Region: Processes, Status and Consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 805, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bartels, D.; Sunkar, R. Drought and Salt Tolerance in Plants. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 23–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bernstein, L. Osmotic Adjustment of Plants to Saline Media. I. Steady State. Am. J. Bot. 1961, 48, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhao, S.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, M.; Zhou, H.; Ma, C.; Wang, P. Regulation of Plant Responses to Salt Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cramer, W.; Guiot, J.; Fader, M.; Garrabou, J.; Gattuso, J.P.; Iglesias, A.; Lange, M.A.; Lionello, P.; Llasat, M.C.; Paz, S.; et al. Climate Change and Interconnected Risks to Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 972–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. USDA World Agricultural Production. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/world-agricultural-production (accessed on 13 September 2023).
  14. FAO World Food Situation. Available online: https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ (accessed on 13 September 2023).
  15. Xynias, I.N.; Mylonas, I.; Korpetis, E.G.; Ninou, E.; Tsaballa, A.; Avdikos, I.D.; Mavromatis, A.G. Durum Wheat Breeding in the Mediterranean Region: Current Status and Future Prospects. Agronomy 2020, 10, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Giambalvo, D.; Amato, G.; Badagliacca, G.; Ingraffia, R.; Di Miceli, G.; Frenda, A.S.; Plaia, A.; Venezia, G.; Ruisi, P. Switching from Conventional Tillage to No-Tillage: Soil N Availability, N Uptake, 15N Fertilizer Recovery, and Grain Yield of Durum Wheat. Field Crops Res. 2018, 218, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shafi, M.; Javed Khan, M.; Bakht, J.; Khan, M.A. Response of Wheat Genotypes to Salinity under Field Environment. Pak. J. Bot. 2013, 45, 787–794. [Google Scholar]
  18. Munns, R.; James, R.A. Screening Methods for Salinity Tolerance: A Case Study with Tetraploid Wheat. Plant Soil. 2003, 253, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Foolad, M.R. Recent Advances in Genetics of Salt Tolerance in Tomato. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2004, 76, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alaoui, M.M.; El Jourmi, L.; Ouarzane, A.; Lazar, S.; El Antri, S.; Zahouily, M.; Hmyene, A. Effet Du Stress Salin Sur La Germination et La Croissance de Six Variétés Marocaines de Blé (Effect of Salt Stress on Germination and Growth of Six Moroccan Wheat Varieties). J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2013, 4, 997–1004. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hmissi, M.; Chaieb, M.; Krouma, A. Differences in the Physiological Indicators of Seed Germination and Seedling Establishment of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Cultivars Subjected to Salinity Stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Borrelli, G.; Ficco, D.; Giuzio, L.; Pompa, M.; Cattivelli, L.; Flagella, Z. Durum Wheat Salt Tolerance in Relation to Physiological, Yield and Quality Characters. Cereal Res. Commun. 2011, 39, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mbarki, S.; Skalicky, M.; Vachova, P.; Hajihashemi, S.; Jouini, L.; Zivcak, M.; Tlustos, P.; Brestic, M.; Hejnak, V.; Khelil, A.Z. Comparing Salt Tolerance at Seedling and Germination Stages in Local Populations of Medicago ciliaris L. to Medicago intertexta L. and Medicago scutellata L. Plants 2020, 9, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jacobsen, S.E.; Jensen, C.R.; Liu, F. Improving Crop Production in the Arid Mediterranean Climate. Field Crops Res. 2012, 128, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tomaz, A.; Palma, P.; Alvarenga, P.; Gonçalves, M.C. Soil Salinity Risk in a Climate Change Scenario and Its Effect on Crop Yield. In Climate Change and Soil Interactions; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 351–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ronga, D.; Biazzi, E.; Parati, K.; Carminati, D.; Carminati, E.; Tava, A. Microalgal Biostimulants and Biofertilisers in Crop Productions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Arora, N.K. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Production and Its Sustainable Solutions. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 2, 95–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mathlouthi, F.; Ruggeri, R.; Rossini, F. Alternative Solution to Synthetic Fertilizers for the Starter Fertilization of Bread Wheat under Mediterranean Climatic Conditions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mathlouthi, F.; Ruggeri, R.; Rossini, A.; Rossini, F. A New Fertilization Approach for Bread Wheat in the Mediterranean Environment: Effects on Yield and Grain Protein Content. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Di Miceli, G.; Vultaggio, L.; Sabatino, L.; De Pasquale, C.; La Bella, S.; Consentino, B.B. Synergistic Effect of a Plant-Derived Protein Hydrolysate and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Eggplant Grown in Open Fields: A Two-Year Study. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bulgari, R.; Cocetta, G.; Trivellini, A.; Vernieri, P.; Ferrante, A. Biostimulants and Crop Responses: A Review. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2015, 31, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Oosten, M.J.; Pepe, O.; De Pascale, S.; Silletti, S.; Maggio, A. The Role of Biostimulants and Bioeffectors as Alleviators of Abiotic Stress in Crop Plants. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Altındal, D. Effects of Seaweed Extract (SE) Applications on Seed Germination Characteristics of Wheat in Salinity Conditions. Int. J. Agric. For. Life Sci. 2019, 3, 115–120. [Google Scholar]
  35. Latique, S.; Aymen, E.M.; Halima, C.; Chérif, H.; Mimoun, E.K. Alleviation of Salt Stress in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum L.) Seedlings Through the Application of Liquid Seaweed Extracts of Fucus spiralis. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 2582–2593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hernández-Herrera, R.M.; Santacruz-Ruvalcaba, F.; Ruiz-López, M.A.; Norrie, J.; Hernández-Carmona, G. Effect of Liquid Seaweed Extracts on Growth of Tomato Seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Makhaye, G.; Aremu, A.O.; Gerrano, A.S.; Tesfay, S.; Du Plooy, C.P.; Amoo, S.O. Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes. Plants 2021, 10, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eugenia, M.; Carvalho, A.; Roberto, P.; Dionisia, A.; Novembre, L.C.; Carvalho, M.E.A.; Castro, P.R.C.; Novembre, A.D.C.; Chamma, H.M.C.P. Seaweed Extract Improves the Vigor and Provides the Rapid Emergence of Dry Bean Seeds. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2013, 13, 1104–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chanthini, K.M.P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Pavithra, G.S.; Malarvizhi, P.; Murugan, P.; Deva-Andrews, A.; Janaki, M.; Sivanesh, H.; Ramasubramanian, R.; Stanley-Raja, V.; et al. Aqueous Seaweed Extract Alleviates Salinity-Induced Toxicities in Rice Plants (Oryza sativa L.) by Modulating Their Physiology and Biochemistry. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gul, S.; Abideen, Z.; Adnan, M.Y.; Hanif, M.; Nawaz, M.F.; Shumaila; Keblawy, A.E. Seaweed-Derived Bio-Stimulant Improves Growth and Salt Tolerance of Radish Varieties under Saline Conditions. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2023, 52, 102822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Supraja, K.V.; Behera, B.; Balasubramanian, P. Efficacy of Microalgal Extracts as Biostimulants through Seed Treatment and Foliar Spray for Tomato Cultivation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 151, 112453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Radwan, A.M.; Ahmed, E.A.; Donia, A.M.; Mustafa, A.E.; Balah, M.A. Priming of Citrullus lanatus Var. colocynthoides Seeds in Seaweed Extract Improved Seed Germination, Plant Growth and Performance under Salinity Conditions. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 11884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hussein, M.H.; Eltanahy, E.; Al Bakry, A.F.; Elsafty, N.; Elshamy, M.M. Seaweed Extracts as Prospective Plant Growth Bio-Stimulant and Salinity Stress Alleviator for Vigna sinensis and Zea mays. J. Appl. Phycol. 2021, 33, 1273–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nezamdoost, D.; Ghahremani, Z.; Akbari, M.B.; Barzegar, T.; Ranjbar, M.E. Can Seed Priming with Seaweed Extract Neutralize the Effects of Salinity on New Red Fire Leafy Lettuce Characteristics? Gesunde Pflanz. 2023, 75, 955–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Battacharyya, D.; Babgohari, M.Z.; Rathor, P.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed Extracts as Biostimulants in Horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Makhaye, G.; Mofokeng, M.M.; Tesfay, S.; Aremu, A.O.; Van Staden, J.; Amoo, S.O. Chapter 5—Influence of Plant Biostimulant Application on Seed Germination. In Biostimulants for Crops from Seed Germination to Plant Development A Practical Approach; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 109–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Taylor, A.G.; Allen, P.S.; Bennett, M.A.; Bradford, K.J.; Burris, J.S.; Misra, M.K. Seed Enhancements. Seed Sci. Res. 1998, 8, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Amirkhani, M.; Mayton, H.S.; Netravali, A.N.; Taylor, A.G. A Seed Coating Delivery System for Bio-Based Biostimulants to Enhance Plant Growth. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sghaier, Y.R.; Zakhama-Sraieb, R.; Mouelhi, S.; Vazquez, M.; Valle, C.; Ramos-Espla, A.A.; Astier, J.M.; Verlaque, M.; Charfi-Cheikhrouha, F. Review of Alien Marine Macrophytes in Tunisia. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2016, 17, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cherif, W.; Ktari, L.; El Bour, M.; Boudabous, A.; Grignon-Dubois, M. Codium fragile Subsp. fragile (Suringar) Hariot in Tunisia: Morphological Data and Status of Knowledge. Algae 2016, 31, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. El-Din, S.M.M. Utilization of Seaweed Extracts as Bio-Fertilizers to Stimulate the Growth of Wheat Seedlings. Egypt. Soc. Exp. Biol. 2015, 11, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nessim, A. Mitigation of Lead Stress in Triticum aestivum by Seed Priming in Aqueous Extracts of The Macroalgea Halimeda opuntia and Codium fragile. Egypt. J. Bot. 2018, 58, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Demir, N.; Dural, B.; Yildirim, K. Effect of Seaweed Suspensions on Seed Germination of Tomato, Pepper and Aubergine. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 6, 1130–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Righini, H.; Francioso, O.; Di Foggia, M.; Prodi, A.; Quintana, A.M.; Roberti, R. Tomato Seed Biopriming with Water Extracts from Anabaena minutissima, Ecklonia maxima and Jania adhaerens as a New Agro-Ecological Option against Rhizoctonia solani. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 281, 109921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Anisimov, M.M.; Klykov, A.G. Metabolites of Terrestrial Plants and Marine Organisms as Potential Regulators of Growth of Agricultural Plants in the Russian Far East. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Royo, A.; Abiò, D. Salt Tolerance in Durum Wheat Cultivars. Span J. Agric. Res. 2003, 1, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cuong, D.M.; Kwon, S.J.; Van Nguyen, B.; Chun, S.W.; Kim, J.K.; Park, S.U. Effect of Salinity Stress on Phenylpropanoid Genes Expression and Related Gene Expression in Wheat Sprout. Agronomy 2020, 10, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Balducci, E.; Tini, F.; Beccari, G.; Ricci, G.; Ceron-Bustamante, M.; Orfei, M.; Guiducci, M.; Covarelli, L. A Two-Year Field Experiment for the Integrated Management of Bread and Durum Wheat Fungal Diseases and of Deoxynivalenol Accumulation in the Grain in Central Italy. Agronomy 2022, 12, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ministero dell’Agricoltura e delle Foreste. Metodi Ufficiali di Analisi per le Sementi. Gazz. Uff. Della Repubb. Ital. 1993.
  60. Soltani, E.; Ghaderi-Far, F.; Baskin, C.C.; Baskin, J.M. Problems with Using Mean Germination Time to Calculate Rate of Seed Germination. Aust. J. Bot. 2015, 63, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Scarici, E.; Ruggeri, R.; Provenzano, M.E.; Rossini, F. Germination and Performance of Seven Native Wildflowers in the Mediterranean Landscape Plantings. Imp. Jpn. Army 2018, 13, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Farooq, M.; Basra, S.M.A.; Ahmad, N.; Hafeez, K. Thermal Hardening: A New Seed Vigor Enhancement Tool in Rice. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2005, 47, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ritz, C.; Pipper, C.B.; Streibig, J.C. Analysis of Germination Data from Agricultural Experiments. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 45, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rossini, F.; Ruggeri, R.; Celli, T.; Rogai, F.M.; Kuzmanović, L.; Richardson, M.D. Cool-Season Grasses for Overseeding Sport Turfs: Germination and Performance under Limiting Environmental Conditions. HortScience 2019, 54, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. R Core Team A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2021. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 17 September 2023).
  66. Onofri, A.; Mesgaran, M.B.; Ritz, C. A Unified Framework for the Analysis of Germination, Emergence, and Other Time-to-Event Data in Weed Science. Weed Sci. 2022, 70, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ayed, S.; Rassaa, N.; Chamekh, Z.; Beji, S.; Karoui, F.; Bouzaien, T.; Mrabit, M.; Ben, Y.M. Effect of Salt Stress (Sodium Chloride) on Germination and Seedling Growth of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 6, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hussain, S.; Khaliq, A.; Matloob, A.; Wahid, M.A.; Afzal, I. Germination and Growth Response of Three Wheat Cultivars to NaCl Salinity. Soil. Environ. 2013, 32, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  69. Latique, S.; Aymen Elouaer, M.; Chernane, H.; Hannachi, C.; Elkaoua, M. Effect of Seaweed Liquid Extract of Sargassum vulgare on Growth of Durum Wheat Seedlings (Triticum durum L.) under Salt Stress. Int. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 2014, 7, 1430–1435. [Google Scholar]
  70. Feghhenabi, F.; Hadi, H.; Khodaverdiloo, H.; van Genuchten, M.T. Seed Priming Alleviated Salinity Stress during Germination and Emergence of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 231, 106022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bonomelli, C.; Celis, V.; Lombardi, G.; Mártiz, J. Salt Stress Effects on Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Plants with and without Seaweed Extract (Ascophyllum nodosum) Application. Agronomy 2018, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Santis, M.A.; Soccio, M.; Laus, M.N.; Flagella, Z. Influence of Drought and Salt Stress on Durum Wheat Grain Quality and Composition: A Review. Plants 2021, 10, 2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pastuszak, J.; Dziurka, M.; Hornyák, M.; Szczerba, A.; Kopeć, P.; Płażek, A. Physiological and Biochemical Parameters of Salinity Resistance of Three Durum Wheat Genotypes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pessarakli, M. Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress; Dekker, M., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; ISBN 0824719484. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hamed, S.M.; Abd El-Rhman, A.A.; Abdel-Raouf, N.; Ibraheem, I.B.M. Role of Marine Macroalgae in Plant Protection & Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture Technology. Beni. Suef. Univ. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sadak, M.; El-Bassiouny, H.; Mahfouz, S.; El-Enany, M.; Elewa, T. Use of Thiamine, Pyridoxine and Biostimulant for Better Yield of Wheat Plants under Water Stress: Growth, Osmoregulations, Antioxidantive Defense and Protein Pattern. Egypt. J. Chem. 2022, 66, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Stirk, W.A.; Van Staden, J. Comparison of Cytokinin- and Auxin-like Activity in Some Commercially Used Seaweed Extracts; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1997; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  78. Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Presowing Seed Treatment with Cytokinins and Its Effect on Growth, Photosynthetic Rate, Ionic Levels and Yield of Two Wheat Cultivars Differing in Salt Tolerance. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2005, 47, 1315–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Seed Treatment with Auxins Modulates Growth and Ion Partitioning in Salt-Stressed Wheat Plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2007, 49, 1003–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M.; Jamil, A. Seed Enhancement with Cytokinins: Changes in Growth and Grain Yield in Salt Stressed Wheat Plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2006, 50, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ribba, T.; Garrido-Vargas, F.; O’Brien, J.A. Auxin-Mediated Responses under Salt Stress: From Developmental Regulation to Biotechnological Applications. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 3843–3853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ashraf, M.; Foolad, M.R. Pre-Sowing Seed Treatment—A Shotgun Approach to Improve Germination, Plant Growth, and Crop Yield Under Saline and Non-Saline Conditions. Adv. Agron. 2005, 88, 223–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lutts, S.; Majerus, V.; Kinet, J.M. NaCl Effects on Proline Metabolism in Rice (Oryza sativa) Seedlings. Physiol. Plant 1999, 105, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Javid, M.G.; Sorooshzadeh, A.; Moradi, F.; Ali, S.; Sanavy, M.M.; Allahdadi, I. The Role of Phytohormones in Alleviating Salt Stress in Crop Plants. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 726–734. [Google Scholar]
  85. Kuiper, D.; Schuit, J.; Kuiper, P.J.C. Actual Cytokinin Concentrations in Plant Tissue as an Indicator for Salt Resistance in Cereals. Plant Soil 1990, 123, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ortiz, J.; Uquiche, E.; Robert, P.; Romero, N.; Quitral, V.; Llantén, C. Functional and Nutritional Value of the Chilean Seaweeds Codium fragile, Gracilaria chilensis and Macrocystis pyrifera. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2009, 111, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Salama, K.H.A.; Mansour, M.M.F.; Al-Malawi, H.A. Glycinebetaine Priming Improves Salt Tolerance of Wheat. Biologia 2015, 70, 1334–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mansour, M.M.F.; Ali, E.F. Evaluation of Proline Functions in Saline Conditions. Phytochemistry 2017, 140, 52–68. [Google Scholar]
  89. Ambreen, S.; Athar, H.u.R.; Khan, A.; Zafar, Z.U.; Ayyaz, A.; Kalaji, H.M. Seed Priming with Proline Improved Photosystem II Efficiency and Growth of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Khafagy, M.A.; Arafa, A.A.; El-Banna, M.F. Glycinebetaine and Ascorbic Acid Can Alleviate the Harmful Effects of Nacl Salinity in Sweet Pepper. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2009, 3, 257–267. [Google Scholar]
  91. Liu, H.-L.; Sha, H.-j.; Wang, J.-g.; Liu, Y.; Zou, D.-t.; Zhao, H.-w. Effect of Seed Soaking with Exogenous Proline on Seed Germination of Rice Under Salt Stress. J. Northeast Agric. Univ. 2014, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mahboob, W.; Athar Khan, M.; Shirazi, M.U. Induction of Salt Tolerance in Wheat Triticum aestivum L. Seedlings through Exogenous Application of Proline. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 861–867. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yang, Y.; Guo, Y. Elucidating the Molecular Mechanisms Mediating Plant Salt-Stress Responses. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Quitadamo, F.; De Simone, V.; Beleggia, R.; Trono, D. Chitosan-Induced Activation of the Antioxidant Defense System Counteracts the Adverse Effects of Salinity in Durum Wheat. Plants 2021, 10, 1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mehmood, S.; Khan, A.A.; Shi, F.; Tahir, M.; Sultan, T.; Munis, M.F.H.; Kaushik, P.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Chaudhary, H.J. Alleviation of Salt Stress in Wheat Seedlings via Multifunctional Bacillus aryabhattai pm34: An in-Vitro Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Seleiman, M.F.; Aslam, M.T.; Alhammad, B.A.; Hassan, M.U.; Maqbool, R.; Chattha, M.U.; Khan, I.; Gitari, H.I.; Uslu, O.S.; Roy, R.; et al. Salinity Stress in Wheat: Effects, Mechanisms and Management Strategies. Phyton-Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 91, 667–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Papenfus, H.B.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Stirk, W.A.; Finnie, J.F.; Van Staden, J. Effect of a Commercial Seaweed Extract (Kelpak®) and Polyamines on Nutrient-Deprived (N, P and K) Okra Seedlings. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 151, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ferreira, M.; Salgado, J.M.; Fernandes, H.; Peres, H.; Belo, I. Potential of Red, Green and Brown Seaweeds as Substrates for Solid State Fermentation to Increase Their Nutritional Value and to Produce Enzymes. Foods 2022, 11, 3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Itroutwar, P.D.; Kasivelu, G.; Raguraman, V.; Malaichamy, K.; Sevathapandian, S.K. Effects of Biogenic Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on Seed Germination and Seedling Vigor of Maize (Zea mays). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 101778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kamran, M.; Wang, D.; Xie, K.; Lu, Y.; Shi, C.; EL Sabagh, A.; Gu, W.; Xu, P. Pre-Sowing Seed Treatment with Kinetin and Calcium Mitigates Salt Induced Inhibition of Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Choysum (Brassica rapa Var. parachinensis). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 227, 112921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Yang, W.; Gao, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Zheng, H.; Chen, Z.; Wu, F.; Du, X.; Sui, N. Exogenous Calcium Application Enhances Salt Tolerance of Sweet Sorghum Seedlings. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2022, 208, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 13 00283 g001
Figure 1. Germination curves generated with the three-parameter log-logistic model of seeds treated with different seaweed extracts (SWE) doses under the following conditions: (A) optimal conditions (0 mM NaCl); (B) mid-saline conditions (100 mM NaCl); (C) high-saline conditions (200 mM NaCl).
Figure 1. Germination curves generated with the three-parameter log-logistic model of seeds treated with different seaweed extracts (SWE) doses under the following conditions: (A) optimal conditions (0 mM NaCl); (B) mid-saline conditions (100 mM NaCl); (C) high-saline conditions (200 mM NaCl).
Plants 13 00283 g001
Plants 13 00283 g002
Figure 2. Number of roots as affected by (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Number of roots as affected by (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Plants 13 00283 g002
Plants 13 00283 g003
Figure 3. Length of the main root as affected by (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Length of the main root as affected by (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Plants 13 00283 g003
Plants 13 00283 g004
Figure 4. Root biomass, as affected by: (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Root biomass, as affected by: (A) salinity and (B) seaweed extracts (SWE). The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Plants 13 00283 g004
Plants 13 00283 g005
Figure 5. Length of the coleoptile as affected by salinity × SWE interaction. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Figure 5. Length of the coleoptile as affected by salinity × SWE interaction. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Plants 13 00283 g005
Plants 13 00283 g006
Figure 6. Coleoptile biomass as affected by salinity × SWE interaction. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Figure 6. Coleoptile biomass as affected by salinity × SWE interaction. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean. Letters above the histograms correspond to the ranking of the Fisher’s protected test at p < 0.05.
Plants 13 00283 g006
Table 1. Final germination percentage and median germination time (T50) for each combination of growth condition and SWE treatment ± standard errors.
Table 1. Final germination percentage and median germination time (T50) for each combination of growth condition and SWE treatment ± standard errors.
Growth ConditionSWE Final Germination (%)T50 (d)
Salinity 0 mM NaCl0%89.34 ± 1.28 b1.65 ± 0.02 a
10%92.70 ± 1.45 a1.62 ± 0.05 a
20%93.13 ± 0.96 a1.71 ± 0.05 a
30%94.82 ± 0.79 a1.73 ± 0.03 a
Salinity 100 mM NaCl0%90.10 ± 0.55 c2.15 ± 0.01 a
10%92.79 ± 0.77 b2.03 ± 0.04 b
20%96.05 ± 0.60 a2.01 ± 0.03 b
30%96.05 ± 0.60 a2.04 ± 0.01 b
Salinity 200 mM NaCl0%60.67 ± 1.08 c3.43 ± 0.11 a
10%82.21 ± 1.22 b2.95 ± 0.07 bc
20%85.65 ± 0.51 ab3.13 ± 0.07 ab
30%87.70 ± 1.54 a2.77 ± 0.12 c
Within each growth condition, means sharing letters are not significantly different at p < 0.05.
Table 2. Results of the ANOVA for quantitative traits of germinated seeds.
Table 2. Results of the ANOVA for quantitative traits of germinated seeds.
Number of RootsLength of the Main RootRoot BiomassColeoptile LengthColeoptile Biomass
SWE ***************
Salinity***************
SWE × Salinityn.s.n.s.n.s.******
ANOVA signif. codes: ‘***’ < 0.001; n.s.: not significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rossini, A.; Ruggeri, R.; Mzid, N.; Rossini, F.; Di Miceli, G. Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot as Biostimulant Agent to Alleviate Salt Stress in Durum Wheat: Preliminary Results from Germination Trials. Plants 2024, 13, 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020283

AMA Style

Rossini A, Ruggeri R, Mzid N, Rossini F, Di Miceli G. Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot as Biostimulant Agent to Alleviate Salt Stress in Durum Wheat: Preliminary Results from Germination Trials. Plants. 2024; 13(2):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020283

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rossini, Angelo, Roberto Ruggeri, Nada Mzid, Francesco Rossini, and Giuseppe Di Miceli. 2024. "Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot as Biostimulant Agent to Alleviate Salt Stress in Durum Wheat: Preliminary Results from Germination Trials" Plants 13, no. 2: 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020283

APA Style

Rossini, A., Ruggeri, R., Mzid, N., Rossini, F., & Di Miceli, G. (2024). Codium fragile (Suringar) Hariot as Biostimulant Agent to Alleviate Salt Stress in Durum Wheat: Preliminary Results from Germination Trials. Plants, 13(2), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020283

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop