Next Article in Journal
Third-Generation Biomass Crops in the New Era of De Novo Domestication
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Clinoptilolite Zeolite on Tropical Peat Soils Nutrient, Growth, Fruit Quality, and Yield of Carica papaya L. cv. Sekaki
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy10091321
agronomy-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:
Perspective

Cyanobacteria as a Nature-Based Biotechnological Tool for Restoring Salt-Affected Soils

by
Francisco Rocha
1,*,
Manuel Esteban Lucas-Borja
2,
Paulo Pereira
3 and
Miriam Muñoz-Rojas
4,5,*
1
Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Escuela Técnica Superior Ingenieros Agrónomos y Montes, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario, 13071 Albacete, Spain
3
Environmental Management Center, Mykolas Romeris University, 08303 Vilnius, Lithuania
4
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
5
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(9), 1321; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091321
Submission received: 15 July 2020 / Revised: 15 August 2020 / Accepted: 1 September 2020 / Published: 3 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Degradation, Restoration and Management: Current Status and Future Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil salinization poses an important threat to terrestrial ecosystems and is expected to increase as a consequence of climate change and anthropogenic pressures. Conventional methods such as salt-leaching or application of soil amendments, or nature-based solutions (NBSs) such as phytoremediation, have been widely adopted with contrasting results. The use of cyanobacteria for improving soil conditions has emerged as a novel biotechnological tool for ecosystem restoration due to the unique features of these organisms, e.g., ability to fix carbon and nitrogen and promote soil stabilisation. Cyanobacteria distribute over a wide range of salt concentrations and several species can adapt to fluctuating salinity conditions. Their application in agricultural saline soil remediation has been demonstrated, mostly in laboratory studies, but there is a lack of research regarding their use in natural ecosystems restoration. In this article, we provide an overview of the current knowledge on cyanobacteria in the context of ecosystem restoration. Examples of the application of cyanobacteria in alleviating salt-stress in plants and soils are presented. Furthermore, we acknowledge gaps regarding the extensive application of cyanobacteria in salt-affected soils remediation and discuss the challenges of NBSs in salt-affected soils restoration.

1. Introduction

Natural and managed ecosystems are undergoing substantial and continuous transformations, in parallel with human activities. Population growth, economic development and expanding cities are expected to increase land consumption, water and energy demand, and threaten global food security [1,2]. Climate change, including increases in frequency and intensity of extreme events, is adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems as well as contributing to land degradation and desertification [3]. The next decade (2021–2030) has been declared by the United Nations as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, with the aim to scale up the restoration of degraded ecosystems and thus fighting the climate crisis and enhancing food security, water supply and biodiversity [4]. Ecosystem restoration refers to as any activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem from a degraded, damaged or destroyed state, re-establishing its functions and services [5,6,7,8]. Together with the protection of ecosystems and their sustainable use and management, restoring ecosystems largely contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [9]. The word “sustainable” is directly expressed in the definition of 11 out of the 17 SDGs, calling for the burgeoning of nature-based solutions (NBSs). NBSs rely on natural processes and cycles, and take advantage of local resources, following the seasonal and temporal changes of ecosystems [10]. These solutions are intertwined with circular economy, an increasingly adopted concept aimed at the efficient use of resources through waste minimisation, long-term value retention, reduction of primary resources, and closed loops of products and materials [11,12].
Soil salinization, i.e., the process that leads to an excessive increase of water-soluble salts in the soil to the extent that impacts on agricultural production, environmental health, and economic welfare [13], poses a substantial threat to terrestrial ecosystems [14,15,16]. Salt-affected soils subdivide in three types and are often classified according to their electrical conductivity of the saturation extract (ECe): saline (ECe > 4 dS m−1; do not contain excessive exchangeable Na+), sodic (ECe < 4 dS m−1) and saline-sodic (ECe > 4 dS m−1; both soluble salts and exchangeable Na+ are high) [17]. Nevertheless, the threshold value above which harmful effects occur can vary depending on several factors including crop type, soil-water regime, climatic condition and soil type [13]. The impacts of salinization are loss of agricultural productivity [18,19,20], contamination of freshwater sources [21], loss of biodiversity [22,23] and damaging of urban infrastructure [24,25,26]. The extent of salt-affected soils is almost 1 billion ha [27,28], with one-fifth of irrigated areas globally being affected by salinization [15]. Salinization, and the consequent ecosystem degradation, is expected to increase due to climate change [29,30] and anthropogenic pressures [31] (Figure 1). These threats call for a reflection on novel approaches that need to be enforced to prevent this issue from spreading irreversibly. This is key to maintain ecosystems vitality and function and ensure their capacity to provide ecosystem services in quantity and quality [16]. Conventional methods such as salt-leaching, application of soil amendments, salt-diverting schemes and improved agricultural practices, have been widely adopted to mitigate the effects of salinization [32,33,34,35,36]. However, such techniques are cost and labour intensive [37] or may aggravate soil degradation when used indiscriminately [32,38], deterring the reclamation of salt-affected soils. Phytoremediation using halophytes has been increasingly seen as an NBS for salt-affected soil remediation [31,39]. However, this approach faces several obstacles such as the potential spreading of invasive species, increased water consumption, soil depth in the rooting zone, and may even backfire and drive salts closer to the surface by capillary action [31,39,40].
Cyanobacteria organisms have emerged as an NBS for ecosystem restoration due to their unique features, e.g., ability to fix carbon and nitrogen and promote soil stabilisation. Their application in agricultural saline soil remediation has been demonstrated in laboratory studies [41], but there is still a considerable knowledge gap regarding their use in natural ecosystems restoration.
In this article, we seek to: (i) provide an overview of the current knowledge on cyanobacteria in the context of ecosystem restoration; (ii) present examples of the application of cyanobacteria in alleviating salt-stress in plants and soils, both in managed and natural ecosystems, and (iii) identify the gaps in knowledge regarding the extensive application of cyanobacteria in saline soil restoration and discuss the challenges of NBSs in saline soil restoration.

2. Cyanobacteria Applications in Ecosystem Restoration

Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic bacteria that represent one of the largest and most comprehensive groups of microorganisms found in a variety of habitats [42]. Their ability to thrive in extreme environments underlines the possibility of using cyanobacteria as an NBS for ecosystem restoration [43]. Cyanobacteria distribute over a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and climatic zones and have affected major geochemical cycles (carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) on Earth for billions of years [42,44,45]. They are often found in symbiotic association with plants, fungi and microorganisms, providing shelter from abiotic stresses and serving as an input of nutrients into soils [46,47,48]. Cyanobacteria are the initial dominant colonisers of biocrusts acting as primary producers and enabling colonisation by lichens or mosses [49,50]. Their ability to move throughout the soil profile allows the subsequent colonisation by less mobile bacteria [51]. Biocrusts, a community of interacting organisms, including cyanobacteria, algae, lichens, and bryophytes, cover the top soil layer of 12% of Earth’s terrestrial surface and are common in drylands, but are present in more humid ecosystems as well [52,53,54,55,56]. Biocrusts promote ecosystem functions by playing an important role in nutrient cycling, soil hydrological, chemical and physical properties and thermal energy balance [57]. Cyanobacteria have important features that can assist in soil restoration such as nitrogen fixation, extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) production and increasing the organic carbon content [58,59,60,61]. Moreover, cyanobacteria form a complex superficial matrix of EPS, water, lipids, proteins, and other compounds that promotes soil colonisation by reducing moisture loss and enhancing soil particle aggregation [62,63].
The potential of cyanobacteria in erosion-prone soil restoration has been demonstrated through improved carbon and nitrogen fixation [64,65], runoff inhibition [66] and aggregate formation through secreted EPS [65]. This ability extends to desert ecosystems where cyanobacteria from biocrusts effectively improve nutrient accumulation and promote edaphic conditions [67]. Cyanobacteria short wet cycles make them excellent candidates for desert soils restoration [68]. Recently, the capability of cyanobacteria inoculation for the recovery of soils in burned areas has shown promising results [69]. Restoring post-mining sites requires a holistic approach through which the disturbance of topsoil incorporating soil microbial communities can result in a modification of ecosystem functions [70]. Muñoz-Rojas et al. [58] highlighted the potential of cyanobacteria to increase soil functions in mine-site restoration by promoting soil carbon sequestration. Similarly, Chua et al. [71] demonstrated that bio-priming native plant seeds with indigenous cyanobacteria promote seedling growth in soils commonly used in mine restoration. Moreover, these organisms can retain pollutants with high efficiency due to diverse proteins and polysaccharide receptors on their surface, acting as prominent agents in the remediation of heavy metal and hydrocarbon polluted soils [72,73].

3. Salinization Threatened Ecosystems and Plant Salt-Tolerance Mechanisms

Several natural ecosystems worldwide are currently threatened by soil salinization to an extent where they no longer can provide ecosystem services in quality and quantity [15,27,28]. There are a wide variety of ecosystems where fauna and flora are well adapted to salinity conditions [74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. However, increased salinization may lead to the disruption of the ecosystem itself or neighbouring ecosystems [81,82,83,84,85]. Furthermore, the pressure to increase agricultural production underlines the importance of saline soil restoration [86,87], with several crops composed of salt-sensitive species (glycophytes) being heavily affected by salinization [88,89]. Arid and semi-arid regions, severely threatened by anthropogenic sources of salinization (e.g., irrigation) [31], are also increasingly being affected by climate change [90]. Rises in temperature in this water-limited areas will inevitably lead to increases in evaporation inducing salinization naturally [15,29]. Sea level rise anticipates seawater flooding into coastal lands, which can be exacerbated by extreme climatic events such as hurricanes, typhoons, storm surges and monsoons [14,30]. Such rises may boost seawater intrusion into aquifers [91,92,93]. Ecosystem degradation due to increased salinization is evident for example in Australia where over 2 million hectares of agricultural land suffer massive production losses [94] and several plant species are threatened as a consequence of salinization [14,95,96,97]. Salinization continues to reduce agricultural productivity [88,98], hence attracting research on NBSs for the reclamation of salt-affected soils.
Plant growth and survival in these environments are limited due to plant osmotic stress and interference with plant nutrition [99,100]. Moreover, salt ions may accumulate in plant tissues to a point where they become toxic, inhibiting enzyme activity and causing cell dehydration [101]. Outside the plant, salinization alters several essential soil biophysical and biogeochemical processes in the rhizosphere and throughout the soil profile [23]. Additionally, soil salinization can have harmful impacts on soil microbial communities, which are crucial to nutrient cycling and other soil processes [102]. To cope with salt-stress, plants have developed tolerance mechanisms based on limiting the entry of salt through the roots and controlling its concentration and distribution [103]. Plants synthesize a set of aminoacids and soluble sugars acting as osmolytes that maintain cell turgor and promote osmotic balance at the cellular level (i.e., osmotic adjustment) [104]. Ion transporters are another osmotic stress protectant since they participate in salt-ion detoxification and homeostasis [103,105]. Gene expression upregulates or downregulates the production of osmolytes and other gene products (e.g., RNA) that confer salt-tolerance [106,107]. This has been observed in wheat and rice crops, making them suitable candidates to increase crop tolerance in salt-affected soils [108,109,110]. Salt-tolerant crops generally have high sodium and chloride concentrations in leaves (higher than the external solution) [111]. This is the case of barley. A complex set of hormone-mediated pathways control root system architecture therefore improving salt tolerance [112,113]. However, the underlying mechanisms in major crops are still little explored [111]. The recent developments in proteomic approaches and plant metabolomics techniques have launched promising bases to understand the salt tolerance response and help selecting new tolerant species [107].

4. Cyanobacteria as a Nature-Based Solution for Salt-Affected Soils Restoration

Plant-associated microorganisms play a crucial role in resistance to salt-stress. These organisms include rhizoplane, rhizosphere and endophytic bacteria, archaea and symbiotic fungi that operate through a variety of mechanisms like triggering osmotic adjustment, providing growth hormones and nutrients, acting as biocontrol agents and induction of novel genes in plants [114,115], or by changing soil physicochemical and structural properties [86]. Due to their ability to promote plant growth, they are usually defined as plant growth-promoting bacteria [116,117].
Cyanobacteria in particular, distribute over a wide range of salt concentrations and several species can adapt to fluctuating salinity conditions [118,119,120]. Osmotic acclimation is achieved via the accumulation of small organic molecules called compatible solutes, followed by the export of inorganic ions that steadily diffuse along electrochemical gradients into the cytoplasm [119,121]. Cyanobacteria (namely Nostoc and Anabaena species) possess unique features for salt-affected soils soil remediation (Figure 2). Released EPS can bind sodium ions and form biofilms, protecting plants from salt-stress [63]. This capability extends to cyanobacterial trichomes that remove soluble sodium from the soil via biosorption [41]. Moreover, EPS promote aggregate formation and stability [59], which in turn enhance plant establishment. Cyanobacteria play a vital role in atmospheric nitrogen fixation [122,123] and carbon capture and sequestration [124,125], which are vital to plant nutrition and soil fertility. These photosynthetic bacteria also improve microbial community activity and diversity through symbiotic associations [126], and, in addition to EPS, cyanobacteria can excrete several acids, hormones, amino acids and vitamins that enhance plant growth and development [127,128]. Compared to other PGPB, cyanobacteria can increase water holding capacity and soil biomass after their death and decomposition [129]. Furthermore, cyanobacteria capacity to tolerate different salinity levels attenuates the demand of freshwater for their cultivation, reinforcing their value as an NBS [119].
Over the past decade, several studies have highlighted the effective application of cyanobacteria for salt-affected soils remediation, reviewed in Li et al. [41]. These studies found significant improvements in growth and yield of major crops (rice, maize, and wheat) as a result of direct de-salinization by cyanobacteria. Improved soil structure (soil channels) promote salt movement to deeper layers of soils and reduce harm to crops [41]. Cyanobacteria and rhizosphere microorganisms induce salt tolerance to crops and protect them from salt disturbances [130]. These features underline the possibility of using phytoremediation (i.e., the use of living plants for in situ removal, degradation, and containment of contaminants in soils) coupled with cyanobacteria (through inoculation) to improve salt-affected soils remediation [41,131]. Even though there are a vast amount of laboratory studies available, little research has been conducted under field conditions [41], much needed for the next large-scale applications [132,133]. The successful use of cyanobacteria in agricultural salt-affected soils remediation extends to several soil types and climatic conditions [41], which could support the up-scale of cyanobacteria culturing and application for salt-affected soil restoration, both in managed and natural ecosystems.

5. Challenges and Opportunities in the Application of Cyanobacteria for Salt-Affected Soils Restoration

Despite their large potential for alleviating salt stress, only a few studies have harnessed cyanobacteria organisms for restoring natural ecosystems affected by salinization [134,135]. These available studies clearly underline the beneficial role of cyanobacteria for removing salts in natural ecosystems. Kakeh et al. [134] found that biocrust organisms reduced the concentration of elements causing salinization (sodium, calcium), the sodium adsorption ratio and pH in northern Iran. Muñoz-Rojas et al. [135] assessed the early-stage transitions of germination and seedling growth of native arid seeds bio-primed with locally-sourced indigenous cyanobacteria used in arid land restoration. The results of their study point towards the critical role of cyanobacteria for removing sodium (below toxic levels) at an early seedling stage in Acacia species. Although cyanobacteria can mobilize other ions (e.g., Ca2+) for growth and metabolic processes, a large number of cyanobacterial strains have the potential to scavenge toxic sodium (Na+) cations from the soil for their growth [131]. This is especially observed under salinity conditions where antiport systems regulate sodium cation transport [131]. Given the extension and severity of soil salinization, the large research gap in cyanobacteria as a tool for salt-affected soils in natural ecosystems is unexpected. One possible explanation is that naturally, salinization can take years or even decades to be considered an environmental problem [94,136]. Perhaps another key factor is the higher economic returns in the agricultural sector, and therefore larger investments in research development compared to that developed in natural areas. The direct delivery of cyanobacteria inoculants in soils [137,138,139], and plants/seeds [71,129,135,140] has shown positive results in ameliorating soil properties and enhancing seed germination, seedling emergence and plant growth in laboratory studies. However, successful large-scale ecosystem restoration may entail direct seeding or seedling planting [141,142,143,144]. Seed germination and seedling growth are dependent on several factors such as water and nutrient availability, temperature, pH, salt concentration and species competition [145,146]. While in agricultural systems several factors can be controlled (e.g., through irrigation, crop selection, tillage, fertilisers), these elements can be difficult to manage in natural ecosystem restoration. Cyanobacteria, as prominent constituents of soil biocrusts, can ensure successful ecosystem restoration by protecting the early stages of vegetation growth from stresses [56,57].
Despite notable advances in recent years, soil restoration through cyanobacterial applications remains a challenge at large-scale, since large and viable volumes of inoculum need to be produced and transferred to the field [49,147]. Water scarcity and extreme environmental conditions can further limit biocrust growth and cyanobacteria establishment in arid and semi-arid regions [69,148]. A crucial consideration in the application of indigenous cyanobacteria for landscape-scale restoration is the ability to grow in acceptable quantities [135,149]. Up-scaling cyanobacteria inoculation applications for ecosystem restoration presents additional challenges like damaging biocrust cover in a less-degraded donor area and the cost of physical stress-reduction methods [148]. There is still a lack of knowledge regarding the factors involved in the success and failure of inoculated cyanobacteria establishment under field conditions. Selection of suitable cyanobacteria isolates for artificial crust formation is crucial for the success of restoration [49,150]. Both primary and applied research are needed to upscale from laboratory or indoor conditions to field-scale applications [133]. The exposure of the cyanobacteria inoculum to harsh conditions prior to their transfer to the field (preconditioning) has shown positive results in the establishment and recovery rates of biocrusts [151,152]. Preconditioning regimes consisting of variable exposure to salt ion concentrations, pH and water regimes may enhance the establishment of biocrusts in salt-affected soils even further. Reinoculation of biocrusts, i.e., biomass resulting from a round of growth is the seed for the next round of biocrust development, has been explored as a novel method to develop biocrusts. There is a sizeable opportunity for this technology to reduce biocrust disturbance and up-scale cyanobacterial applications in soil restoration [49,152].

6. Conclusions

Ecosystem restoration is fundamental to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [9,153]. Several studies have been performed to unravel the potential of cyanobacteria as a nature-based solution for ecosystem restoration, due to their unique features, e.g., ability to fix carbon and nitrogen and promote soil stabilisation and salt-affected-soils remediation. However, additional field trials are needed to draw definite conclusions for large scale application. The impact of cyanobacterial applications in soil and plant salt-stress response is still not completely understood, but further discoveries will reveal new possibilities to restore soil fertility, increase crop tolerance and enhance seed germination and seedling emergence of native vegetation. Climate change is expected to exacerbate land degradation resulting from anthropogenic pressures, including soil salinization. The emergency of saline soil restoration in agricultural areas is notable when compared to natural environments. Salinization significantly reduces growth and productivity of glycophytes, which are the majority of agricultural products whereas there is a wide variety of ecosystems where native vegetation is well adapted to saline conditions. Photosynthetic bacteria improve soil structure allowing regeneration of native species and new species establishment. The integration of cyanobacteria and plants can be crucial to improve remediation success of salt-affected soils. Co-culturing cyanobacteria with other rhizosphere microorganisms can be a powerful biotechnological tool for salt-affected soil remediation. We call researchers to explore the potential of cyanobacteria in the context of managed and natural salt-affected ecosystems restoration. Laboratory and field experiments should be carried out to investigate (i) the adaptation of cyanobacteria to different climatic conditions, soil types and rhizospheres [51,154,155] (ii) the identity and distribution of cyanobacteria communities in soil components and biocrusts [156,157] and (iii) the effects of salinization on biocrust establishment. Further research could help recover many ecosystem services and increase the extension of arable land, contributing to the achievement of the SDGs and a circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.R. and M.M.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, F.R., M.M.-R., M.E.L.-B., P.P.; writing—review and editing, F.R., M.M.-R., M.E.L.-B., P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Australian Research Council: DE180100570.

Acknowledgments

M.M.-R. was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award [DE180100570].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. UNESCO; UN-Water. United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: Water and Climate Change; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2020; ISBN 978-92-3-100371-4. [Google Scholar]
  3. IPCC. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Shukla, P., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., et al., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, in press.
  4. United Nations. New UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration Offers Unparalleled Opportunity for Job Creation, Food Security and Addressing Climate Change. Available online: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/new-un-decade-ecosystem-restoration-offers-unparalleled-opportunity (accessed on 27 June 2019).
  5. Sabogal, C.; Besacier, C.; McGuire, D. Forest and landscape restoration: Concepts, approaches and challenges for implementation. Unsasylva 2015, 66, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Muñoz-Rojas, M. Soil quality indicators: Critical tools in ecosystem restoration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martin, D.M. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Mendes, P.; Meireles, C.; Vila-Viçosa, C.; Musarella, C.; Pinto-Gomes, C. Best management practices to face degraded territories occupied by Cistus ladanifer shrublands—Portugal case study. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2015, 149, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wood, S.L.R.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Massimo, D.E.; Musolino, M.; Fragomeni, C.; Malerba, A. A Green District to Save the Planet. In Integrated Evaluation for the Management of Contemporary Cities. SIEV 2016; Mondini, G., Fattinnanzi, E., Oppio, A., Bottero, M., Stanghellini, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rengasamy, P. World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. FAO; ITPS. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR)—Main Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Shahid, S.A.; Zaman, M.; Heng, L. Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem. In Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using Nuclear and Related Techniques; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 43–53. ISBN 978-3-319-96190-3. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pereira, P.; Barceló, D.; Panagos, P. Soil and water threats in a changing environment. Environ. Res. 2020, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sparks, D.L. 10—The Chemistry of Saline and Sodic Soils. In Environmental Soil Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 285–300. ISBN 978-0-12-656446-4. [Google Scholar]
  18. Butcher, K.; Wick, A.F.; DeSutter, T.; Chatterjee, A.; Harmon, J. Soil Salinity: A Threat to Global Food Security. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 2189–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Majeed, A.; Muhammad, Z. Salinity: A Major Agricultural Problem—Causes, Impacts on Crop Productivity and Management Strategies. In Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance; Hasanuzzaman, M., Hakeem, R.K., Nahar, K., Alharby, H.F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 83–99. ISBN 978-3-030-06117-3. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zörb, C.; Geilfus, C.-M.; Dietz, K.-J. Salinity and crop yield. Plant Biol. 2019, 21, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cañedo-Argüelles, M.; Kefford, B.; Schäfer, R. Salt in freshwaters: Causes, effects and prospects—Introduction to the theme issue. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Briggs, S.; Taws, N. Impact of salinity on biodiversity—Clear understanding or muddy confusion. Aust. J. Bot. 2003, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harmon, J.P.; Daigh, A.L.M. Attempting to predict the plant-mediated trophic effects of soil salinity: A mechanistic approach to supplementing insufficient information. Food Webs 2017, 13, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Buckland, D.; McGhie, S. Costs of Urban Salinity Local Government Salinity Initiative—Booklet No.10; NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources: Parramatta, Australia, 2005.
  25. Office of the Auditor General for Western Australia. Dryland Salinity Is a Significant Cost and Major Risk to the State. Available online: https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-publications/reports/management-of-salinity/key-findings/dryland-salinity-is-a-significant-cost-and-major-risk-to-the-state/ (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  26. Almheiri, Z.; Meguid, M. Buried Infrastructure in Saline Soils: A Review. In Proceedings of the Conference: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Laval, QC, Canada, 12–15 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. EU. World Atlas of Desertification; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ivushkin, K.; Bartholomeus, H.; Bregt, A.K.; Pulatov, A.; Kempen, B.; de Sousa, L. Global mapping of soil salinity change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Okur, B.; Örçen, N. Soil salinization and climate change. In Climate Change and Soil Interactions; Prasad, M.N.V., Pietrzykowski, M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 331–350. ISBN 978-0-12-818032-7. [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Litalien, A.; Zeeb, B. Curing the earth: A review of anthropogenic soil salinization and plant-based strategies for sustainable mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Qadir, M.; Ghafoor, A.; Murtaza, G. Amelioration strategies for saline soils: A review. Land Degrad. Dev. 2000, 11, 501–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Australian Government. Keeping Salt out of the Murray. Available online: https://www.mdba.gov.au/publications/brochures-factsheets/keeping-salt-out-murray (accessed on 7 June 2020).
  34. Vecchio, M.C.; Golluscio, R.A.; Rodríguez, A.M.; Taboada, M.A. Improvement of Saline-Sodic Grassland Soils Properties by Rotational Grazing in Argentina. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 71, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wichern, F.; Islam, M.R.; Hemkemeyer, M.; Watson, C.; Joergensen, R.G. Organic Amendments Alleviate Salinity Effects on Soil Microorganisms and Mineralisation Processes in Aerobic and Anaerobic Paddy Rice Soils. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shankar, V.; Evelin, H. Strategies for Reclamation of Saline Soils. In Microorganisms in Saline Environments: Strategies and Functions. Soil Biology; Giri, B., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 56, pp. 439–449. ISBN 978-3-030-18974-7. [Google Scholar]
  38. Leogrande, R.; Vitti, C. Use of organic amendments to reclaim saline and sodic soils: A review. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2019, 33, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nouri, H.; Chavoshi Borujeni, S.; Nirola, R.; Hassanli, A.; Beecham, S.; Alaghmand, S.; Saint, C.; Mulcahy, D. Application of green remediation on soil salinity treatment: A review on halophytoremediation. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 107, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Nahar, K.; Alam, M.M.; Bhowmik, P.C.; Hossain, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Ozturk, M.; Fujita, M. Potential Use of Halophytes to Remediate Saline Soils. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, H.; Zhao, Q.; Huang, H. Current states and challenges of salt-affected soil remediation by cyanobacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 669, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gaysina, L.A.; Saraf, A.; Singh, P. Cyanobacteria in Diverse Habitats. In Cyanobacteria from Basic Science to Applications; Mishra, A.K., Tiwari, D.N., Rai, A.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-0-12-814667-5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Singh, J.S.; Kumar, A.; Rai, A.N.; Singh, D.P. Cyanobacteria: A Precious Bio-resource in Agriculture, Ecosystem, and Environmental Sustainability. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Singh, A.K.; Singh, P.P.; Tripathi, V.; Verma, H.; Singh, S.K.; Srivastava, A.K.; Kumar, A. Distribution of cyanobacteria and their interactions with pesticides in paddy field: A comprehensive review. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 224, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Couradeau, E.; Benzerara, K.; Gérard, E.; Moreira, D.; Bernard, S.; Brown, G.E., Jr.; López-García, P. An early-branching microbialite cyanobacterium forms intracellular carbonates. Science 2012, 336, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Warshan, D.; Espinoza, J.L.; Stuart, R.K.; Richter, R.A.; Kim, S.-Y.; Shapiro, N.; Woyke, T.; Kyrpides, N.C.; Barry, K.; Singan, V.; et al. Feathermoss and epiphytic Nostoc cooperate differently: Expanding the spectrum of plant–cyanobacteria symbiosis. ISME J. 2017, 11, 2821–2833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Bustos-Díaz, E.D.; Barona-Gómez, F.; Cibrián-Jaramillo, A. Cyanobacteria in Nitrogen-Fixing Symbioses. In Cyanobacteria from Basic Science to Applications; Mishra, A.K., Tiwari, D.N., Rai, A.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 29–42. ISBN 978-0-12-814667-5. [Google Scholar]
  48. Foster, R.A.; Zehr, J.P. Diversity, Genomics, and Distribution of Phytoplankton-Cyanobacterium Single-Cell Symbiotic Associations. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 73, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Giraldo-Silva, A.; Nelson, C.; Barger, N.N.; Garcia-Pichel, F. Nursing biocrusts: Isolation, cultivation, and fitness test of indigenous cyanobacteria. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 793–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Becerra-Absalón, I.; Muñoz-Martín, M.Á.; Montejano, G.; Mateo, P. Differences in the Cyanobacterial Community Composition of Biocrusts From the Drylands of Central Mexico. Are There Endemic Species? Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Chamizo, S.; Adessi, A.; Mugnai, G.; Simiani, A.; De Philippis, R. Soil Type and Cyanobacteria Species Influence the Macromolecular and Chemical Characteristics of the Polysaccharidic Matrix in Induced Biocrusts. Microb. Ecol. 2019, 78, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Belnap, J.; Weber, B.; Büdel, B. Biological soil crusts as an organizing principle in drylands. In Biological Soil Crusts: An Organizing Principle in Drylands. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis); Weber, B., Buedel, B., Belnap, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rodriguez-Caballero, E.; Belnap, J.; Büdel, B.; Crutzen, P.J.; Andreae, M.O.; Pöschl, U.; Weber, B. Dryland photoautotrophic soil surface communities endangered by global change. Nat. Geosci. 2018, 11, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Machado-de-Lima, N.M.; Fernandes, V.M.C.; Roush, D.; Velasco Ayuso, S.; Rigonato, J.; Garcia-Pichel, F.; Branco, L.H.Z. The Compositionally Distinct Cyanobacterial Biocrusts From Brazilian Savanna and Their Environmental Drivers of Community Diversity. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Szyja, M.; Menezes, A.; Oliveira, F.D.A.; Leal, I.; Tabarelli, M.; Büdel, B.; Wirth, R. Neglected but Potent Dry Forest Players: Ecological Role and Ecosystem Service Provision of Biological Soil Crusts in the Human-Modified Caatinga. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Antoninka, A.; Faist, A.; Rodriguez-Caballero, E.; Young, K.E.; Chaudhary, V.B.; Condon, L.A.; Pyke, D.A. Biological soil crusts in ecological restoration: Emerging research and perspectives. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bowker, M.A.; Reed, S.C.; Maestre, F.T.; Eldridge, D.J. Biocrusts: The living skin of the earth. Plant Soil 2018, 429, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Román, J.R.; Roncero-Ramos, B.; Erickson, T.E.; Merritt, D.J.; Aguila-Carricondo, P.; Cantón, Y. Cyanobacteria inoculation enhances carbon sequestration in soil substrates used in dryland restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 1149–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Costa, O.Y.A.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Kuramae, E.E. Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substances: Ecological Function and Impact on Soil Aggregation. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Moreira-Grez, B.; Tam, K.; Cross, A.T.; Yong, J.W.H.; Kumaresan, D.; Nevill, P.; Farrell, M.; Whiteley, A.S. The Bacterial Microbiome Associated With Arid Biocrusts and the Biogeochemical Influence of Biocrusts Upon the Underlying Soil. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Abinandan, S.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Soil microalgae and cyanobacteria: The biotechnological potential in the maintenance of soil fertility and health. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2019, 39, 981–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Roncero-Ramos, B.; Román, J.R.; Gómez-Serrano, C.; Cantón, Y.; Acién, F.G. Production of a biocrust-cyanobacteria strain (Nostoc commune) for large-scale restoration of dryland soils. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 2217–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singh, S.; Kant, C.; Yadav, R.K.; Reddy, Y.P.; Abraham, G. Cyanobacterial Exopolysaccharides: Composition, Biosynthesis, and Biotechnological Applications. In Cyanobacteria from Basic Science to Applications; Mishra, A.K., Tiwari, D.N., Rai, A.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 347–358. ISBN 978-0-12-814667-5. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kheirfam, H.; Sadeghi, S.H.; Zarei Darki, B. Soil conservation in an abandoned agricultural rain-fed land through inoculation of cyanobacteria. Catena 2020, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sepehr, A.; Hassanzadeh, M.; Rodriguez-Caballero, E. The protective role of cyanobacteria on soil stability in two Aridisols in northeastern Iran. Geoderma Reg. 2019, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sadeghi, S.H.; Kheirfam, H.; Zarei Darki, B. Controlling runoff generation and soil loss from field experimental plots through inoculating cyanobacteria. J. Hydrol. 2020, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. He, M.; Hu, R.; Jia, R. Biological soil crusts enhance the recovery of nutrient levels of surface dune soil in arid desert regions. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Perera, I.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Naidu, R.; Megharaj, M. Consortia of cyanobacteria/microalgae and bacteria in desert soils: An underexplored microbiota. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 7351–7363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chamizo, S.; Adessi, A.; Certini, G.; De Philippis, R. Cyanobacteria inoculation as a potential tool for stabilization of burned soils. Restor. Ecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Williams, W.; Chilton, A.; Schneemilch, M.; Williams, S.; Neilan, B.; Driscoll, C. Microbial biobanking—Cyanobacteria-rich topsoil facilitates mine rehabilitation. Biogeosciences 2019, 16, 2189–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Chua, M.; Erickson, T.E.; Merritt, D.J.; Chilton, A.M.; Ooi, M.K.J.; Muñoz-Rojas, M. Bio-priming seeds with cyanobacteria: Effects on native plant growth and soil properties. Restor. Ecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kulal, D.K.; Loni, P.C.; Dcosta, C.; Some, S.; Kalambate, P.K. Cyanobacteria as a promising candidate for heavy-metals removal. In Advances in Cyanobacterial Biology; Singh, P.K., Kumar, A., Singh, V.K., Shrivastava, A.K., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 291–300. ISBN 978-0-12-819311-2. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kumar, C.; Chatterjee, A.; Wenjing, W.; Yadav, D.; Singh, P.K. Cyanobacteria: Potential and role for environmental remediation. In Abatement of Environmental Pollutants; Singh, P., Kumar, A., Borthakur, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 193–202. ISBN 978-0-12-818095-2. [Google Scholar]
  74. Clüsener-Godt, M.; Cárdenas Tomažič, M.R. 8—The Importance of Mangrove Ecosystems for Nature Protection and Food Productivity: Actions of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme. In Halophytes for Food Security in Dry Lands; Khan, M.A., Ozturk, M., Gul, B., Ahmed, M.Z., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 125–140. ISBN 978-0-12-801854-5. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sieben, E.J.J.; Collins, N.B.; Mtshali, H.; Venter, C.E. The vegetation of inland wetlands with salt-tolerant vegetation in South Africa: Description, classification and explanatory environmental factors. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 104, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bueno González, M. Adaptation of Halophytes to Different Habitats. In Seed Dormancy and Germination; Jimenez-Lopez, J.C., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  77. Viswanathan, C.; Purvaja, R.; Jeevamani, J.J.J.; Deepak Samuel, V.; Sankar, R.; Abhilash, K.R.; Geevarghese, G.A.; Muruganandam, R.; Gopi, M.; Raja, S.; et al. Salt marsh vegetation in India: Species composition, distribution, zonation pattern and conservation implications. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 242, 106792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Colombetti, P.; Calderon, M.; Tello, J.; González, P.; Jofré, M. Relationships between aquatic invertebrate assemblages and environmental quality on saline wetlands of an arid environment. J. Arid Environ. 2020, 181, 104245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cano, E.; Cano-Ortiz, A.; Veloz, A.; Alatorre, J.; Otero, R. Comparative analysis between the mangrove swamps of the Caribbean and those of the State of Guerrero (Mexico). Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2012, 146, 112–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Privitera, M.; Galesi, R.; Arato, L.; Puglisi, M. Bryophyte diversity in Augusta-Priolo territory (South-Eastern Sicily). Flora Mediterr. 2015, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Duberstein, J.A.; Krauss, K.W.; Baldwin, M.J.; Allen, S.T.; Conner, W.H.; Salter, J.S.; Miloshis, M. Small gradients in salinity have large effects on stand water use in freshwater wetland forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 473, 118308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Berger, E.; Frör, O.; Schäfer, R.B. Salinity impacts on river ecosystem processes: A critical mini-review. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2019, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Yang, J.; Zhan, C.; Li, Y.; Zhou, D.; Yu, Y.; Yu, J. Effect of salinity on soil respiration in relation to dissolved organic carbon and microbial characteristics of a wetland in the Liaohe River estuary, Northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 946–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhai, J.; Yan, G.; Cong, L.; Wu, Y.; Dai, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, M. Assessing the effects of salinity and inundation on halophytes litter breakdown in Yellow River Delta wetland. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Marazzi, L.; Gaiser, E.; Eppinga, M.; Sah, J.; Zhai, L.; Castañeda-Moya, E.; Angelini, C. Why Do We Need to Document and Conserve Foundation Species in Freshwater Wetlands? Water 2019, 11, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Shrivastava, P.; Kumar, R. Soil salinity: A serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Etesami, H.; Noori, F. Soil Salinity as a Challenge for Sustainable Agriculture and Bacterial-Mediated Alleviation of Salinity Stress in Crop Plants. In Saline Soil-Based Agriculture by Halotolerant Microorganisms; Kumar, M., Etesami, H., Kumar, V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  88. Cheeseman, J. Food Security in the Face of Salinity, Drought, Climate Change, and Population Growth. In Halophytes for Food Security in Dry Lands; Khan, M.A., Ozturk, M., Gul, B., Ahmed, M.Z., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 111–123. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kataria, S.; Verma, S. Salinity Stress Responses and Adaptive Mechanisms in Major Glycophytic Crops: The Story So Far. In Salinity Responses and Tolerance in Plants; Kumar, V., Wani, S., Suprasanna, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kumar, A.; Sharma, P.; Joshi, S. Assessing the impacts of climate change on land productivity in indian crop agriculture: An evidence from panel data analysis. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  91. Greene, R.; Timms, W.; Rengasamy, P.; Arshad, M.; Cresswell, R. Soil and Aquifer Salinization: Toward an Integrated Approach for Salinity Management of Groundwater. In Integrated Groundwater Management; Jakeman, A., Barreteau, O., Hunt, R.J., Rinaudo, J., Ross, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 377–412. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wassef, R.; Schüttrumpf, H. Impact of sea-level rise on groundwater salinity at the development area western delta, Egypt. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 2, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rahman, M.S.; Di, L.; Yu, E.G.; Tang, J.; Lin, L.; Zhang, C.; Yu, Z.; Gaigalas, J. Impact of Climate Change on Soil Salinity: A Remote Sensing Based Investigation in Coastal Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics (Agro-Geoinformatics), Hangzhou, China, 6–9 August 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  94. Australian Policy and History Soil Salinity in Australia: A Slow Motion Crisis. Available online: https://aph.org.au/2018/12/soil-salinity-in-australia-a-slow-motion-crisis/ (accessed on 2 July 2020).
  95. Phogat, V.; Cox, J.W.; Šimůnek, J. Identifying the future water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Dalziell, E.L.; Lewandrowski, W.; Merritt, D.J. Increased salinity reduces seed germination and impacts upon seedling development in Nymphaea L. (Nymphaeaceae) from northern Australia’s freshwater wetlands. Aquat. Bot. 2020, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bui, E.N. Soil salinity: A neglected factor in plant ecology and biogeography. J. Arid Environ. 2013, 92, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Russ, J.; Zaveri, E.; Damania, R.; Desbureaux, S.; Escurra, J.; Rodella, A.-S. Salt of the Earth: Quantifying the Impact of Water Salinity on Global Agricultural Productivity. In Policy Research Working Papers; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  99. Acosta-Motos, J.; Ortuño, M.; Bernal-Vicente, A.; Diaz-Vivancos, P.; Sanchez-Blanco, M.; Hernandez, J. Plant Responses to Salt Stress: Adaptive Mechanisms. Agronomy 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Machado, R.; Serralheiro, R. Soil Salinity: Effect on Vegetable Crop Growth. Management Practices to Prevent and Mitigate Soil Salinization. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Munns, R. Genes and salt tolerance: Bringing them together. New Phytol. 2005, 167, 645–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yan, N.; Marschner, P.; Cao, W.; Zuo, C.; Qin, W. Influence of salinity and water content on soil microorganisms. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2015, 3, 316–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Hanin, M.; Ebel, C.; Ngom, M.; Laplaze, L.; Masmoudi, K. New Insights on Plant Salt Tolerance Mechanisms and Their Potential Use for Breeding. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Liang, W.; Ma, X.; Wan, P.; Liu, L. Plant salt-tolerance mechanism: A review. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 495, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wu, H. Plant salt tolerance and Na+ sensing and transport. Crop J. 2018, 6, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Gupta, B.; Huang, B. Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Int. J. Genom. 2014, 2014, 701596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hernández, J.A. Salinity Tolerance in Plants: Trends and Perspectives. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Genc, Y.; Taylor, J.; Lyons, G.; Li, Y.; Cheong, J.; Appelbee, M.; Oldach, K.; Sutton, T. Bread Wheat With High Salinity and Sodicity Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Liang, W.; Cui, W.; Ma, X.; Wang, G.; Huang, Z. Function of wheat Ta-UnP gene in enhancing salt tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis and rice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014, 450, 794–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Razzaque, S.; Elias, S.M.; Haque, T.; Biswas, S.; Jewel, G.M.N.A.; Rahman, S.; Weng, X.; Ismail, A.M.; Walia, H.; Juenger, T.E.; et al. Gene Expression analysis associated with salt stress in a reciprocally crossed rice population. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Munns, R.; Gilliham, M. Salinity tolerance of crops—What is the cost? New Phytol. 2015, 208, 668–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Julkowska, M.M.; Koevoets, I.T.; Mol, S.; Hoefsloot, H.; Feron, R.; Tester, M.A.; Keurentjes, J.J.B.; Korte, A.; Haring, M.A.; de Boer, G.-J.; et al. Genetic Components of Root Architecture Remodeling in Response to Salt Stress. Plant Cell 2017, 29, 3198–3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Arif, M.R.; Islam, M.T.; Robin, A.H. Salinity Stress Alters Root Morphology and Root Hair Traits in Brassica napus. Plants 2019, 8, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Abbas, R.; Rasul, S.; Aslam, K.; Baber, M.; Shahid, M.; Mubeen, F.; Naqqash, T. Halotolerant PGPR: A hope for cultivation of saline soils. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2019, 31, 1195–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Etesami, H.; Glick, B.R. Halotolerant plant growth–promoting bacteria: Prospects for alleviating salinity stress in plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Glick, B.R. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Mechanisms and Applications. Sci. Cairo 2012, 2012, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. De Souza, R.; Ambrosini, A.; Passaglia, L.M.P. Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2015, 38, 401–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Oren, A. Cyanobacteria in hypersaline environments: Biodiversity and physiological properties. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 781–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kirsch, F.; Klähn, S.; Hagemann, M. Salt-Regulated Accumulation of the Compatible Solutes Sucrose and Glucosylglycerol in Cyanobacteria and Its Biotechnological Potential. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Shetty, P.; Gitau, M.M.; Maróti, G. Salinity Stress Responses and Adaptation Mechanisms in Eukaryotic Green Microalgae. Cells 2019, 8, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Pade, N.; Hagemann, M. Salt acclimation of cyanobacteria and their application in biotechnology. Life 2014, 5, 25–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mishra, A.K.; Kaushik, M.S.; Tiwari, D.N. Nitrogenase and Hydrogenase: Enzymes for Nitrogen Fixation and Hydrogen Production in Cyanobacteria. In Cyanobacteria; Mishra, A.K., Tiwari, D.N., Rai, A.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 173–191. ISBN 978-0-12-814667-5. [Google Scholar]
  123. Deepthi, A.S.; Ray, J.G. Algal associates and the evidence of cyanobacterial nitrogen fixation in the velamen roots of epiphytic orchids. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Schipper, K.; Al Muraikhi, M.; Alghasal, G.S.H.S.; Saadaoui, I.; Bounnit, T.; Rasheed, R.; Dalgamouni, T.; Al Jabri, H.M.S.J.; Wijffels, R.H.; Barbosa, M.J. Potential of novel desert microalgae and cyanobacteria for commercial applications and CO2 sequestration. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 2231–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Natarajan, J.; Arunachalam, L.; Vellingiri, G. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Cyanobacteria (Blue Green Algae) in Rice Cultivation Ecosystems. Chem. Sci. Rev. Lett. 2017, 6, 2569–2572. [Google Scholar]
  126. Adams, D.G.; Bergman, B.; Nierzwicki-Bauer, S.A.; Duggan, P.S.; Rai, A.N.; Schüßler, A. Cyanobacterial-Plant Symbioses. In The Prokaryotes; Rosenberg, E., DeLong, E.F., Lory, S., Stackebrandt, E., Thompson, F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 359–400. ISBN 978-3-642-30194-0. [Google Scholar]
  127. Rai, A.N.; Singh, A.K.; Syiem, M.B. Plant Growth-Promoting Abilities in Cyanobacteria. In Cyanobacteria from Basic Science to Applications; Mishra, A.K., Tiwari, D.N., Rai, A.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 459–476. ISBN 978-0-12-814667-5. [Google Scholar]
  128. Mohan, A.; Kumar, B. Plant Growth Promoting Activities of Cyanobacteria Growing In Rhizosphere of Agriculturally Fertile Soil. J. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2019, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rady, M.M.; Taha, S.S.; Kusvuran, S. Integrative application of cyanobacteria and antioxidants improves common bean performance under saline conditions. Sci. Hortic. Amst. 2018, 233, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Benidire, L.; El Khalloufi, F.; Oufdou, K.; Barakat, M.; Tulumello, J.; Ortet, P.; Heulin, T.; Achouak, W. Phytobeneficial bacteria improve saline stress tolerance in Vicia faba and modulate microbial interaction network. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 139020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Singh, N.; Dhar, D. Cyanobacterial Reclamation of Salt-Affected Soil. In Genetic Engineering, Biofertilisation, Soil Quality and Organic Farming. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 243–275. [Google Scholar]
  132. Pathak, J.; Rajneesh; Maurya, P.K.; Singh, S.P.; Häder, D.-P.; Sinha, R.P. Cyanobacterial Farming for Environment Friendly Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Innovations and Perspectives. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chamizo, S.; Emilio Rodríguez Caballero, Y.C.; Philippis, R. De Soil Inoculation with Cyanobacteria: Reviewing Its’ Potential for Agriculture Sustainability in Drylands. Agric. Res. Technol. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Kakeh, J.; Gorji, M.; Sohrabi, M.; Tavili, A.; Pourbabaee, A.A. Effects of biological soil crusts on some physicochemical characteristics of rangeland soils of Alagol, Turkmen Sahra, NE Iran. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 181, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Chilton, A.; Liyanage, G.S.; Erickson, T.E.; Merritt, D.J.; Neilan, B.A.; Ooi, M.K.J. Effects of indigenous soil cyanobacteria on seed germination and seedling growth of arid species used in restoration. Plant Soil 2018, 429, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Metternicht, G.; Zinck, A. Remote Sensing of Soil Salinization: Impact on Land Management, 1st ed.; Metternicht, G., Zinck, A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  137. Chittapun, S.; Limbipichai, S.; Amnuaysin, N.; Boonkerd, R.; Charoensook, M. Effects of using cyanobacteria and fertilizer on growth and yield of rice, Pathum Thani I: A pot experiment. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 30, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Román, J.R.; Roncero-Ramos, B.; Chamizo, S.; Rodríguez-Caballero, E.; Cantón, Y. Restoring soil functions by means of cyanobacteria inoculation: Importance of soil conditions and species selection. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 3184–3193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Letendre, A.-C.; Coxosn, D.; Stewart, K. Restoration of Ecosystem Function by Soil Surface Inoculation with Biocrust in Mesic and Xeric Alpine Ecosystems. Ecol. Restor. 2019, 37, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Sharma, V.; Prasanna, R.; Hossain, F.; Muthusamy, V.; Nain, L.; Das, S.; Shivay, Y.S.; Kumar, A. Priming maize seeds with cyanobacteria enhances seed vigour and plant growth in elite maize inbreds. 3 Biotech 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Palma, A.C.; Laurance, S.G.W. A review of the use of direct seeding and seedling plantings in restoration: What do we know and where should we go? Appl. Veg. Sci. 2015, 18, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Erickson, T.E.; Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Kildisheva, O.A.; Stokes, B.A.; White, S.A.; Heyes, J.L.; Dalziell, E.L.; Lewandrowski, W.; James, J.J.; Madsen, M.D.; et al. Benefits of adopting seed-based technologies for rehabilitation in the mining sector: A Pilbara perspective. Aust. J. Bot. 2017, 65, 646–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Pérez, D.R.; González, F.; Ceballos, C.; Oneto, M.E.; Aronson, J. Direct seeding and outplantings in drylands of Argentinean Patagonia: Estimated costs, and prospects for large-scale restoration and rehabilitation. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 1105–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sampaio, A.B.; Vieira, D.L.M.; Holl, K.D.; Pellizzaro, K.F.; Alves, M.; Coutinho, A.G.; Cordeiro, A.; Ribeiro, J.F.; Schmidt, I.B. Lessons on direct seeding to restore Neotropical savanna. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 138, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Iqbal, M.A.; Shen, Y.; Stricevic, R.; Pei, H.; Sun, H.; Amiri, E.; Penas, A.; del Rio, S. Evaluation of the FAO AquaCrop model for winter wheat on the North China Plain under deficit irrigation from field experiment to regional yield simulation. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 135, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Puglia, G.; Carta, A.; Bizzoca, R.; Toorop, P.; Spampinato, G.; Raccuia, S.A. Seed dormancy and control of germination in Sisymbrella dentata (L.) O.E. Schulz (Brassicaceae). Plant Biol. 2018, 20, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Román, J.R.; Chilton, A.M.; Cantón, Y.; Muñoz-Rojas, M. Assessing the viability of cyanobacteria pellets for application in arid land restoration. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Antoninka, A.; Bowker, M.A.; Barger, N.N.; Belnap, J.; Giraldo-Silva, A.; Reed, S.C.; Garcia-Pichel, F.; Duniway, M.C. Addressing barriers to improve biocrust colonization and establishment in dryland restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Strieth, D.; Stiefelmaier, J.; Wrabl, B.; Schwing, J.; Schmeckebier, A.; Di Nonno, S.; Muffler, K.; Ulber, R. A new strategy for a combined isolation of EPS and pigments from cyanobacteria. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 1729–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Rossi, F.; Li, H.; Liu, Y.; De Philippis, R. Cyanobacterial inoculation (cyanobacterisation): Perspectives for the development of a standardized multifunctional technology for soil fertilization and desertification reversal. Earth Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Giraldo-Silva, A.; Nelson, C.; Penfold, C.; Barger, N.N.; Garcia-Pichel, F. Effect of preconditioning to the soil environment on the performance of 20 cyanobacterial strains used as inoculum for biocrust restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bethany, J.; Giraldo-Silva, A.; Nelson, C.; Barger, N.N.; Garcia-Pichel, F. Optimizing the Production of Nursery-Based Biological Soil Crusts for Restoration of Arid Land Soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Bateman, A.M.; Muñoz-Rojas, M. To whom the burden of soil degradation and management concerns. In Soil Degradation, Restoration and Management in a Global Change Context; Pereira, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 4, pp. 1–22. ISBN 2468-9289. [Google Scholar]
  154. Mukhtar, S.; Mirza, B.S.; Mehnaz, S.; Mirza, M.S.; McLean, J.; Malik, K.A. Impact of soil salinity on the microbial structure of halophyte rhizosphere microbiome. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kvíderová, J.; Kumar, D. Response of short-term heat shock on photosynthetic activity of soil crust cyanobacteria. Protoplasma 2020, 257, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Roncero-Ramos, B.; Muñoz-Martín, M.Á.; Chamizo, S.; Fernández-Valbuena, L.; Mendoza, D.; Perona, E.; Cantón, Y.; Mateo, P. Polyphasic evaluation of key cyanobacteria in biocrusts from the most arid region in Europe. PeerJ 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Sommer, V.; Karsten, U.; Glaser, K. Halophilic Algal Communities in Biological Soil Crusts Isolated from Potash Tailings Pile Areas. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agronomy 10 01321 g001 550
Figure 1. Current processes leading to salinization. Sea-level rise and extreme events promote seawater flooding and intrusion into coastal land which leads to deforestation. Deforestation can result in increased rates of evaporation which brings salt to the surface layers of the soil and catalyse deforestation and soil fertility reduction. Human practices can induce salinization through deforestation, effluent discharge and water-table rise which may bring salts to the top layers of the soil. High temperatures lead to increased evaporation and other extreme events can cause atmospheric deposition of salts.
Figure 1. Current processes leading to salinization. Sea-level rise and extreme events promote seawater flooding and intrusion into coastal land which leads to deforestation. Deforestation can result in increased rates of evaporation which brings salt to the surface layers of the soil and catalyse deforestation and soil fertility reduction. Human practices can induce salinization through deforestation, effluent discharge and water-table rise which may bring salts to the top layers of the soil. High temperatures lead to increased evaporation and other extreme events can cause atmospheric deposition of salts.
Agronomy 10 01321 g001
Agronomy 10 01321 g002 550
Figure 2. Mechanisms of salt-affected soil remediation by cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria produce EPS. EPS form biofilms with other microorganisms and biosorpt sodium (Na+). EPS enhance soil aggregation and produce plant-growth promoting (PGP) substances. Cyanobacteria fix nitrogen (N2) and capture carbon dioxide (CO2). Cyanobacteria form symbiotic relationships with other plant-growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) which in turn form endophytic and rhizospheric associations with plants.
Figure 2. Mechanisms of salt-affected soil remediation by cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria produce EPS. EPS form biofilms with other microorganisms and biosorpt sodium (Na+). EPS enhance soil aggregation and produce plant-growth promoting (PGP) substances. Cyanobacteria fix nitrogen (N2) and capture carbon dioxide (CO2). Cyanobacteria form symbiotic relationships with other plant-growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) which in turn form endophytic and rhizospheric associations with plants.
Agronomy 10 01321 g002

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rocha, F.; Esteban Lucas-Borja, M.; Pereira, P.; Muñoz-Rojas, M. Cyanobacteria as a Nature-Based Biotechnological Tool for Restoring Salt-Affected Soils. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091321

AMA Style

Rocha F, Esteban Lucas-Borja M, Pereira P, Muñoz-Rojas M. Cyanobacteria as a Nature-Based Biotechnological Tool for Restoring Salt-Affected Soils. Agronomy. 2020; 10(9):1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091321

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rocha, Francisco, Manuel Esteban Lucas-Borja, Paulo Pereira, and Miriam Muñoz-Rojas. 2020. "Cyanobacteria as a Nature-Based Biotechnological Tool for Restoring Salt-Affected Soils" Agronomy 10, no. 9: 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091321

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