Next Article in Journal
Identification of the Efficacy of Ex Situ Conservation of Ammopiptanthus nanus Based on Its ETS-SSR Markers
Next Article in Special Issue
ROS Homeostasis and Antioxidants in the Halophytic Plants and Seeds
Previous Article in Journal
Weed-Hoeing Periods in Cowpea Cultivation under Direct and Conventional Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 14
10.3390/plants12142669
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:
Review

Economic Uses of Salt-Tolerant Plants

by
Pedro Garcia-Caparros
1,
Mohammed J. Al-Azzawi
2 and
Timothy J. Flowers
2,*
1
Department of Superior School Engineering, University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain
2
School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(14), 2669; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12142669
Submission received: 22 June 2023 / Revised: 9 July 2023 / Accepted: 11 July 2023 / Published: 17 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wild Halophytes: Tools for Understanding Salt Tolerance Mechanisms of Plants and for Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change II)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change is likely to affect the ability of world agricultural systems to provide food, fibre, and fuel for the growing world population, especially since the area of salinised land will increase. However, as few species of plants (less than 1% of all plant species) can tolerate saline soils, we believe it is important to evaluate their potential as crops for salinised soils. We have analysed the economic and potential economic uses of plants that are listed in the database eHALOPH, including the most tolerant species, halophytes. For nine main categories of economic value, we found a total of 1365 uses amongst all species listed in eHALOPH as of July 2022; this number reduced to 918 amongst halophytes. We did not find any obvious differences in rankings between the more tolerant halophytes and the whole group of salt-tolerant plants, where the order of use was medical, followed by forage, traditional medicine, food and drink, fuel, fuelwood, and bioenergy. While many species are potentially important as crops, the effects of salt concentration on their uses are much less well documented. Increasing salt concentration can increase, decrease, or have no effect on the concentration of antioxidants found in different species, but there is little evidence on the effect of salinity on potential yield (the product of concentration and biomass). The effect of salinity on forage quality again varies with species, often being reduced, but the overall consequences for livestock production have rarely been evaluated. Salt-tolerant plants have potential uses in the bioremediation of degraded land (including revegetation, phytoremediation, and extraction of NaCl) as well as sources of biofuels, although any use of saline water for the sustainable irrigation of salt-tolerant crops must be viewed with extreme caution.

1. Introduction

1.1. Population and Food

Recent predicted changes to the climate and their consequent effects on food production have generated thousands of publications over the last five years (3125 papers found in searching the research topic of ‘review and (world or global) and (food and production)’ in the Web of Science core collection in mid-October 2022) and focused minds on feeding the human population of the world in the future. Twelve years ago, FAO had already concluded that “The world has the resources and technology to eradicate hunger and ensure long-term food security for all, in spite of many challenges and risks. It needs to mobilize political will and build the necessary institutions to ensure that key decisions on investment and policies to eradicate hunger are taken and implemented effectively” (https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2023)). More recently, van Dijk et al. [1] conducted a meta-analysis of 57 studies published between 2000 and 2018 that enabled them to predict increases in global food demand and the global population at risk of hunger. Global food demand was forecast to increase by between 35% and 56% by 2050 compared with 2010. Achieving such increases may require new food ‘frontiers’, “innovations in food production technologies and techniques” [2], especially following the worrying words in the executive summary of the FAO document on feeding the world (loc. cit.) that the rate of growth of yield of the main cereals had fallen to about 1.5% per year in 2000. In our view climate change is likely to have a negative impact on food production in particular areas of the world through its effects on salinisation, since high concentrations of salts in the soil generally decrease plant growth (see below).

1.2. Salinisation

Many estimates have been made over the years of the extent of salt-affected land and its economic consequences. Past estimates of the area affected ranged from 340 to 950 million ha [3]. The recently launched website of the Global Framework on Water Scarcity in Agriculture (WASAG) shows that over 424 million hectares (MHa) of topsoil (0–30 cm) and 833 million hectares of subsoil (30–100 cm) are currently salt-affected (https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/gsasmap/en accessed on 14 June 2023). Data in the map is supported by an analysis carried out by Hassani et al. [4], who estimated 590 MHa of land suffered with an electrical conductivity of a saturated extract of the soil (ECe) ≥ 4 dS·m−1 in ¾ of the years between 1980 and 2018. These are large areas of land, that include what were highly productive irrigated soils [5] and are likely to be made even larger by the consequences aridity, with its need for irrigation for agricultural production, and rising sea levels in coastal regions.
The oceans of the world cover about 71% of the world’s surface with some 356,000 km of coastline (https://www.citypopulation.de/en/world/bymap/coastlines/ accessed on 14 June 2023). These coastlines are the zones in contact with the salt solution that makes up the oceans of the world and so their immediate hinterlands are the first in line for any inundation that might be caused by tsunami [6,7], storm surges [8] or extremes in tidal height, see [9]. Such events have occurred over the centuries but might be expected to occur with greater frequency as a consequence of global warming and the rise in sea level; the reasons are discussed in detail by [10].
As well as direct salinisation of land by seawater, climate change is predicted to increase aridity in some parts of the world [11]. In arid regions, agriculture relies heavily on irrigation [5], as plants require water to be transpired in order to grow. However, since, over time, irrigation commonly results in the build-up of salts in the soil profile, e.g., [12,13], yields tend to decline and land goes out of production as the majority of our plants and crops are sensitive to salt.

1.3. Salinisation, Plant Growth, and Crop Yields

More than sixty years ago, it was clear that most of our crops are sensitive to salt [14] and although data on differential tolerance was scarce [15], variations in tolerance between varieties had been described, e.g., [16,17,18]. By the mid-1970s, comprehensive lists of crop tolerance were published [19]; see [20] for a more comprehensive history of the approaches to evaluate salt tolerance in crops. By the 1980s, approaches to breeding for salt tolerance were being explored [21,22] as well as the use of halophytes in forage production [23]. A comprehensive list of differences in salt tolerance of crop species was published by Maas [24]. Tolerance was characterised by a threshold up to which no loss of yield occurred and a subsequent rate of yield loss per unit increase in salinity estimated as the conductivity of a saturated extract of the soil solution—although many of the rankings were determined for a limited range of varieties and under specific agronomic conditions; see [25,26] for potential improvements to the methodology.

1.4. Ways to Deal with the Salinity Problem

At around the time crop sensitivity to salt was being documented, the use of saline water in agriculture was promulgated by Hugo and Elisabeth Boyko [27,28,29]. They claimed to be able to irrigate crops with salt water provided the substrate was sand or gravel. However, this use of seawater to raise conventional crops has not, as far as we are aware, been a success and reported results have not allowed evaluation of productivity, the importance of fog or rain or of irrigation frequency [30]. Halophytes, however, can grow in saline soils and by 1969, their potential use as forage was shown by the pioneer Clive Malcolm, e.g., [31]. Mudie [30,32] was able to demonstrate that salt tolerant plants could be raised with seawater. Subsequently, Aronson built on her work and in a seminal publication [33] compiled a list of over 1560 species “complied for anyone growing or planning to grow halophytes” based on the primary criterion of a “known or presumed tolerance to electrical conductivity measuring (or estimated to be) at least 7.8 dS m−1, during significant periods of the plant’s entire life” [33]. The potential of halophytes as new vegetable, forage, and oilseed crops as well as in managing saline agricultural wastewater was explored in a review published towards the end of the last century by Ed Glenn, another pioneer in the field, with his colleagues [34]. There have been very many other reviews of the use of various aspects of using saline water and salt-tolerant plants in agriculture, horticulture, and the remediation of degraded lands; here we provide examples (and we emphasize these are just examples) from the last ten years include; Cassaniti et al. [35], Ventura and Sagi [36], Rozema and Schat [37], Hasanuzzaman et al. [38], Nizar et al. [39], Loconsole et al. [40], Li et al. [41], Oliveira et al. [42], Holguin-Pena et al. [43], Spradlin and Saha [44], and García-Caparros et al. [45].

2. eHALOPH and the Current Review

In the current review, we have looked at the economic uses, established and potential, of salt-tolerant plants. These include those that tolerate a salt concentration equivalent to about 80 mM NaCl and those tolerating at least 200 mM NaCl (halophytes). To do this, we have used the data collected in Aronson’s HALOPH, which have been incorporated into an electronic database that is available at https://ehaloph.uc.pt/ accessed on 14 June 2023, see also [46]. The data has been reviewed and extended (by Flowers and Al-Azzawi https://ehaloph.uc.pt/ accessed on 14 June 2023), so that there are now about 1200 salt-tolerant species in the database in 93 families with 650 halophytes in 46 families. If families are ranked by the number of species, then the Amaranthaceae, Poaceae, Fabaceae, and Plumbaginaceae dominate both groups. The Zosteraceae, Cymodocaeae, and Acanthaceae are ranked higher amongst halophytes than in all salt-tolerant plants (Table 1).
We have used the data in eHALOPH to construct tables of use by family, genus, and species of all the species listed in the database. We searched the Web of Science (all databases) for “Genus species” and (economic or use), in ‘Topic’ or ’Abstract’ or ‘Title’ in order to find a consensus of uses for the species and add one or two supporting references. The economic uses were classified according to a modified version of The Survey of Economic Plants for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (SEPASAL; http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/sepasal/ accessed on 1 June 2022) used by Aronson [33]. The main categories are shown in Table 2 and the full list used in eHALOPH is in Supplementary Table S1.
Main economic uses
For the nine main categories (Table 2), we found a total of 1365 uses amongst all species listed in eHALOPH as of July 2022; this number reduced to 918 amongst halophytes (Table 3). For both groups of plants, most uses (close to 30%) were medical followed by use as forage (20%).
There were no obvious differences between the more tolerant halophytes and the whole group of salt-tolerant plants, where the order of use was medical, followed by forage, traditional medicine, food and drink, fuel, fuelwood, and bioenergy (Table 3); 12 crops (classified as crops according to a list published by FAO at https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/world_census_of_agriculture/appendix4_r7.pdf accessed on 14 June 2023) were found to be salt-tolerant. Of the 404 species with medical uses, 201 were used as traditional medicines (Category 7100). Amongst the other categories there were 91 species with uses as fuel, fuelwood, or bioenergy (2100 + 2110 + 2120 + 8300). Clearly, the physiology of salt tolerance in plants has not limited their use by humans. In the following analyses, we have used data from all the species listed in eHALOPH, rather than restricting our analysis to halophytic (species at least 200 mM NaCl), to illustrate how economic use and salt tolerance can be complementary traits. We have not sought to show every economic use of these salt-tolerant plants, but to illustrate their potential value in a salinizing world.
Medical (Traditional medicine)
Salt-tolerant plants have long been known for their uses as traditional medicines (see [48] for an extensive list) and examples are provided by Buhmann and Papenbrock [49] in their wide-ranging review of compounds from halophytes with potential pharmacological value. Their review highlighted the potential of halophytes for the production of pharmaceuticals including compounds with antioxidative and antimicrobial activity, with cautionary notes on the importance of extraction methods, plant identification, and the identification of bioactive chemical constituents. Buhmann and Papenbrock [49] give examples of increases in phenols and flavonoids with increasing external salinity, a trait that could be exploited were halophytes to be grown for their chemical content.
We have found 90% of (404) medical uses occurred in thirty-six families; 50% of medical uses are accounted for by nine families (Table 4). Of these, a high proportion of salt-tolerant species in the Apiaceae, Rhizophoraceae, and Malvaceae families are used as traditional medicines. These medicinal uses presumably relate to antibiotic properties and/or the content of specific chemicals within the plants. For example, Rodrigues et al. [50] have reviewed the antiparasitic properties of halophytes and highlight the anthelmintic properties of Dysphania ambrosioides.
In order to evaluate if external salinity influences the medicinal properties of salt-tolerant plants, we have looked at 102 papers on 65 species from 27 families within the whole range tolerance of species included in eHALOPH to determine if growth under saline conditions alters the content of antibiotic compounds (Category 7160.0 in Table 1), but could not find evidence that this had been investigated. Our conclusion mirrors that of Selmar [51] who looked at the concentrations of pharmaceuticals produced by plants under drought and salt stress. He noted that the effects of the stress on growth is likely to negate any increase in quantity of the compound that might be produced. For salt-tolerant plants, loss of biomass in the presence of salinity, may not be so much of an issue, as growth can even be promoted by salt [47]. Further investigations of the effects of salinity on antibiotic content of salt-tolerant plants is clearly an area worth further investigation.
Antioxidants
The medicinal properties of plants might not only reflect the presence of antibiotics but also of antioxidants, see [49] mentioned above. Consequently, we have tabulated the number of families of salt-tolerant plants reported to contain potential antioxidants: flavonoids, together with phenols and polyphenols are reported in over 100 species and tannins in about 20 species (Table 5).
Although flavonoids have been reported from 116 species of salt-tolerant plant, we found just 20 species where the effects of external salinity on their concentration was recorded (in 12 papers). It is clear from the data in Table 6 that salt can increase (12 species), or have no effect on (6 species) or decrease (2 species) the concentration of flavonoids.
For phenols and polyphenols, we found 75 papers reporting the concentrations of phenols or polyphenols, of which 13 reported the effects of salinity on the concentration in 22 species (Table 7). Salinity increased the phenol concentration in thirteen species, had no or little effect in four, and decreased the concentration in five species.
Although tannins have been measured in at least 21 species of salt-tolerant plants Table 5 [72], we did not find any examples of reports of the effects of salinity on their concentration.
In most cases where concentrations of antioxidants are reported, they are on a dry weight basis, but where a fresh weight basis was used care needs to be taken that the results were not influenced by a changing water content. As far as obtaining an economic yield of flavonoids, polyphenols, or tannins is concerned, it is important to understand that while concentrations can be quite variable between species e.g., [56], yields will depend on the weight of the plant that can be harvested and on the effects of salt concentration on that biomass. Rarely has the combination of salt and successive harvests been investigated, but see [61]: it can mean that maximal yields are achieved in fresh water, e.g., Polygonum maritimum [61]. There appears to be a weak correlation between salinity and the concentration of phenols and flavonoids in plants occupying habitats ranging from salt marsh to dunes, a semiarid calcareous area, and a gypsiferous area [73], interpreted as showing halophytes are not under oxidative stress in their natural habitats. Interestingly, the concentrations of polyphenols were significantly higher in mangrove trees than in herbaceous halophytes growing in neighbouring sites [74].
Forage
Salt tolerant plants have a long history of use as forage or fodder particularly as reserve feed, see [75,76,77] and have considerable potential in the restoration of degraded land [78]. For forage, various measures are used to assess quality, these include acid detergent fibre (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), ash content, crude fibre (CF), crude protein (CP), in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD), metabolizable energy (ME), organic matter digestibility (MD), and neutral detergent fibre (NDF), see, for example, [76,79,80], with a range of methods being available to estimate in vivo digestibility, see for example [81].
After medical use, forage has the highest economic use found for salt-tolerant plants (Table 8), but unlike medical use, just three families dominate use as forage and only 31 of the 93 families have any recorded use as forage.
In an extensive review based mainly on research conducted in the Near East, El Shaer et al. [76] concluded that halophytes have potential as feedstuff for sheep, goats, and camels. Halophytes have also been shown to have potential for the production of forage in Iran [82] and California, e.g., [83,84], as in other arid regions [80,85], although quality can be low, e.g., [86].
Although there are many papers suggesting the value of halophytes as forage, there is less information on the effect of salinity on the quality of that forage. We found data on 18 species, which mostly suggested that forage quality was maintained as salinity increased (Table 9). However, in assessing the feed quality of any particular halophyte, care should be taken as a high (perhaps 50%) of the dry matter can be salt, requiring the animals to drink more water and the organic dry matter can have low digestibility and contain toxic elements such as oxalate [77,87]. Advantages in using halophytes may come from the nitrogenous compounds used in osmotic adjustment [47] and minerals and metabolites associated with antioxidant activity, see for example., [87,88]. Consequently, assessing the value simply in terms of dry matter production is inadvisable.
Bioremediation
The data in eHALOPH show 269 species are used for what is termed ‘bioremediation’ (or have potential use in bioremediation) with 81% being accounted for in fourteen families (Table 10): three families account for 52% of uses or potential uses. We have analysed the potential uses of the Amaranthaceae, for which we found 63 records with most being for revegetation (30 species): other uses were extraction of NaCl (20), phytoremediation, (18) and extraction of heavy metals (14).
Biofuels
The use of halophytes as sources of biofuels is important in the context of the competition for land for the production of food and fuel. The continuous rise in atmospheric CO2 is a driver for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and their eventual replacement by fuels generated from plants [101,102], thus reducing the introduction of stored CO2 into the atmosphere and recycling that which is already present. To date, feedstocks for biofuels have been edible crops such as sugarcane, wheat, maize, soybean, and rapeseed, but the need to feed the human population of the world has led to the development of second-generation feedstocks, Miscanthus and Jatropha, but which still require the use of land that could grow food. Consequently, interest has grown in the use of third-generation feedstocks—plants that can grow on saline land and/or be irrigated with salt water. Salt-tolerant plants offer a new opportunity for biofuel production where competition for land use for food is minimized, see [103]. The data in eHALOPH suggest that just 10 families offer more than 80% of the 97 species with economic uses as fuel, fuelwood, charcoal, or bioenergy (Table 11).

3. Conclusions

The data in eHALOPH has been primarily produced from that in Aronson [33], supplemented with that listed by [104,105,106], although only those species where there is clear published evidence of tolerance of the equivalent of about 80 mM NaCl are included (there are likely to be many other species that are salt tolerant, but without published verification). Within the data in eHALOPH, it is possible to separate halophytes as those tolerating 200 mM NaCl or more, a soil salinity of at least 20 dS m−1 (in the saturation extract), sea water or its equivalent salt concentration of 35.5 g L−1. For all those species meeting the criterion of salt tolerance, we made a specific search for economic uses by searching all database in the Web of Science for “Genus species” and (economic or use) for all the species in the database. This was completed in July 2022.
The importance of salinity for food production has been known for thousands of years [107] as has the consequent need to understand and increase the salt tolerance of our major crops, see [20]. However, there is likely a new urgency to exploit salt-tolerant plants given changes in climate and human population. Almost thirty years ago, Flowers and Yeo [3] posed the “whether, at least in some cases, effort would not be better spent on domestication of halophytes rather than on improving resistance of conventional crops”. It is in this context that the various potential uses of salt tolerance should be viewed. Flowers and Yeo [3] advocated the use of halophytes in seriously salt affected soils, concluding “As O’Leary [108] points out, it is the improvement of agronomic characteristics that has the history of success; the enhancement of salt resistance does not”. While there have been improvements in the salt resistance of major crops such as rice [109,110] and wheat [111,112], it remains the case that where salinity is entrenched, salt tolerant plants offer the most likely means to revegetate land and obtain useful yields of plant material whether for food, fibre or fuel, see [113,114] for reviews of the uses of salt-tolerant plants in agriculture. Salt-tolerant plants can also be a source of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria that may aid the growth of less salt-tolerant plants under saline conditions [115]. We have shown that there are species that can be grown in what for our current crops would be toxic conditions.
While salinity has a detrimental effect on the yield of most of our conventional crops, it is clear that growth rates of halophytes in saline conditions that match those of less salt-tolerant species, see [34]; this is true of halophytic trees [116]. As a consequence, the use of salt-tolerant forages (Table 8) has many supporters, but there is too little information to be certain about the effects of salinity on the quality of forage. Similarly, there is a paucity of information on the effects of salinity on antioxidants, such as flavonoids, phenols and tannins. If salt-tolerant plants are to be grown for their chemical contents, then it will be important to evaluate the effects of external salt concentration on the yield—a combination of biomass and concentration. The concentration can increase under saline conditions (e.g., flavonoids, Table 6), but yield depends on the response of biomass harvested.
While it may be possible to utilise halophytes for forage and even pharmaceuticals on naturally or soil salinised by human activity, whether they can be produced with saline irrigation is a different question [117]. Saline water dramatically affects soil structure, so the sustainable use of saltwater for irrigation is only likely on sandy soils with deep drainage and even here the long-term consequences of an increase of saline groundwaters must be considered. Halophytes are likely to have a place in both agriculture and horticulture, but in carefully managed situations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12142669/s1, Table S1: Categories of Economic Uses of salt-tolerant plants used in eHALOPH–based on the version of SEPASAL used by Aronson (1989).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.J.F. and M.J.A.-A.; data curation, T.J.F. and M.J.A.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, T.J.F.; writing—review & editing, T.J.F. and P.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We are grateful to the Gatsby Foundation for their support of the re-coding of the eHALOPH website over the period June 2020 to September 2022.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to construct the tables in this review are available at https://ehaloph.uc.pt/. and were accessed between 1 July 2022 and 22 June 2023.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Joaquim Santos for his continued support of eHALOPH and to Stephen Cook for his coding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Glaros, A.; Marquis, S.; Major, C.; Quarshie, P.; Ashton, L.; Green, A.G.; Kc, K.B.; Newman, L.; Newell, R.; Yada, R.Y.; et al. Horizon scanning and review of the impact of five food and food production models for the global food system in 2050. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Flowers, T.J.; Yeo, A.R. Breeding for salinity resistance in crop plants: Where next? Funct. Plant Biol. 1995, 22, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hassani, A.; Azapagic, A.; Shokri, N. Predicting long-term dynamics of soil salinity and sodicity on a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 33017–33027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cochard, R.; Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L.; Shivakoti, G.P.; Shipin, O.V.; Edwards, P.J.; Seeland, K.T. The 2004 tsunami in ACEH and southern Thailand: A review on coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008, 10, 3–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reid, J.A.; Mooney, W.D. Tsunami occurrence 1900–2020: A global review, with examples from Indonesia. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2022, 180, 1549–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Enriquez, A.R.; Wahl, T.; Baranes, H.E.; Talke, S.A.; Orton, P.M.; Booth, J.F.; Haigh, I.D. Predictable changes in extreme sea levels and coastal flood risk due to long-term tidal cycles. J. Geophys. Res.-Ocean. 2022, 127, e2021JC018157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nicholls, R.J.; Kebede, A.S. Indirect impacts of coastal climate change and sea-level rise: The UK example. Clim. Policy 2012, 12, S28–S52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mimura, N. Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its implications for society. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 89, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. IPCC. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  12. Thorslund, J.; Bierkens, M.F.P.; Essink, G.H.P.O.; Sutanudjaja, E.H.; van Vliet, M.T.H. Common irrigation drivers of freshwater salinisation in river basins worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Vicente, O. Improving agricultural production and food security under climate change conditions. Agrolife Sci. J. 2022, 11, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bernstein, L. Salt tolerance of field crops. US Agric. Inf. Bull. 1960, 217, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kreeb, K. Salt injuries on cultural crops. Zeit Pflanzenkrankh 1960, 67, 385–399. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ayers, A.D.; Wadleigh, C.H.; Bernstein, L. Salt tolerance in six varieties of lettuce. Am. Soc. Plant Sci. 1951, 57, 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bernstein, L.; Ayers, A.D. Salt tolerance in six varieties of green beans. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1951, 57, 243–248. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bernstein, L.; Wadleigh, C.H.; Ayers, A.D. The salt tolerance of white rose potatoes. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1951, 57, 231–236. [Google Scholar]
  19. Maas, E.V.; Hoffmann, G.J. Crop salt tolerance: Evaluation of existing data. In Managing Water for Irrigation: Proceedings of the International Salinity Conference; Dregne, H.E., Ed.; Texas Technical University Press: Lubbock, TX, USA, 1977; pp. 187–197. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ashraf, M.; Munns, R. Evolution of approaches to increase the salt tolerance of crops. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2022, 41, 128–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Epstein, E.; Norlyn, J.D.; Rush, D.W.; Kingsbury, R.W.; Kelley, D.B.; Cunningham, G.A.; Wrona, A.F. Saline culture of crops—A genetic approach. Science 1980, 210, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blum, A. Breeding crop varieties for stress environments. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1985, 2, 199–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jefferies, R.L.; Pitman, M.G. Perspectives of the biology of halophytes in natural habitats in relation to forage production. Reclam. Reveg. Res. 1986, 5, 227–243. [Google Scholar]
  24. Maas, E.V. Crop salt tolerance. In Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management; Tanji, K., Ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 262–304. [Google Scholar]
  25. van Straten, G.; de Vos, A.C.; Rozema, J.; Bruning, B.; van Bodegom, P.M. An improved methodology to evaluate crop salt tolerance from field trials. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Misle, E.; Kahlaoui, B. Converting classic data of salt tolerance into an allometric crop salinity response function. Plant Biosyst. 2021, 155, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boyko, H. Sand deserts—Granaries of future. Futures 1969, 1, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Boyko, H. Salinity and Aridity: New Approaches to Old Problems; Dr W Junk: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  29. Boyko, H. Principles and experiments regarding irrigation with highly saline and sea water without desalinization. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. Ser. II 1964, 26, 1087–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mudie, P.J.; Schmitt, W.R.; Luard, E.J.; Rutherford, J.W.; Wolfson, F.H. Preliminary Studies on Seawater Irrigation; Foundation for Ocean research Publication: San Diego, CA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  31. Malcolm, C.V. Use of halophytes for forage production on saline wastelands. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 1969, 35, 38. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mudie, P.J. The Potential Economic Uses of Halophytes; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  33. Aronson, J.A. Haloph a Data Base of Salt Tolerant Plants of the World; Office of Arid Land Studies, University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  34. Glenn, E.P.; Brown, J.J.; Blumwald, E. Salt tolerance and crop potential of halophytes. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1999, 18, 227–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cassaniti, C.; Romano, D.; Hop, M.; Flowers, T.J. Growing floricultural crops with brackish water. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ventura, Y.; Sagi, M. Halophyte crop cultivation: The case for Salicornia and Sarcocornia. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rozema, J.; Schat, H. Salt tolerance of halophytes, research questions reviewed in the perspective of saline agriculture. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. 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, 589341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Nizar, M.; Hajer, G.; Kamel, H. Potential Use of Halophytes and Salt Tolerant Plants in Ruminant Feeding: A Tunisian Case Study; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Loconsole, D.; Cristiano, G.; De Lucia, B. Glassworts: From wild salt marsh species to sustainable edible crops. Agriculture 2019, 9, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Li, L.Y.; Zhao, Y.; Han, G.L.; Guo, J.R.; Meng, Z.; Chen, M. Progress in the study and use of seawater vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 5998–6006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Oliveira, M.; Hoste, H.; Custodio, L. A systematic review on the ethnoveterinary uses of Mediterranean salt-tolerant plants: Exploring its potential use as fodder, nutraceuticals or phytotherapeutics in ruminant production. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 267, 113464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Holguin Pena, R.J.; Hernandez, D.M.; Ghasemi, M.; Puente, E.O.R. Salt tolerant plants as a valuable resource for sustainable food production in arid and saline coastal zones. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2021, 26, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spradlin, A.; Saha, S. Saline aquaponics: A review of challenges, opportunities, components, and system design. Aquaculture 2022, 555, 738173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Caparros, P.G.; Ozturk, M.; Gul, A.; Batool, T.S.; Pirasteh-Anosheh, H.; Unal, B.T.; Altay, V.; Toderich, K.N. Halophytes have potential as heavy metal phytoremediators: A comprehensive review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 193, 104666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Santos, J.; Al-Azzawi, M.; Aronson, J.; Flowers, T.J. eHALOPH a database of salt-tolerant plants: Helping put halophytes to work. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016, 57, e1–e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Flowers, T.J.; Colmer, T.D. Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 945–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ksouri, R.; Ksouri, W.M.; Jallali, I.; Debez, A.; Magne, C.; Hiroko, I.; Abdelly, C. Medicinal halophytes: Potent source of health promoting biomolecules with medical, nutraceutical and food applications. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2012, 32, 289–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buhmann, A.; Papenbrock, J. An economic point of view of secondary compounds in halophytes. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 952–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Rodrigues, M.J.; Pereira, C.G.; Oliveira, M.; Zengin, G.; Custodio, L. Salt-tolerant plants as sources of antiparasitic agents for human use: A comprehensive review. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Selmar, D. Potential of salt and drought stress to increase pharmaceutical significant secondary compounds in plants. Landbauforsch. Volkenrode 2008, 58, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  52. Benjamin, J.J.; Lucini, L.; Jothiramshekar, S.; Parida, A. Metabolomic insights into the mechanisms underlying tolerance to salinity in different halophytes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 528–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Dadkhah, N.; Esmaeili, M.; Pirdashti, H.; Sepanloo, M.G. Response of two halophyte plants (Nitraria schoberi and Halocnemum strobilaceum) to potassium sulfate under saline condition. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2017, 7, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Yadav, S.; Elansary, H.O.; Mattar, M.A.; Elhindi, K.M.; Alotaibi, M.A.; Mishra, A. Differential accumulation of metabolites in Suaeda species provides new insights into abiotic stress tolerance in C4-halophytic species in elevated CO2 conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Xu, Z.; Zhou, J.; Ren, T.; Du, H.; Liu, H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, C. Salt stress decreases seedling growth and development but increases quercetin and kaempferol content in Apocynum venetum. Plant Biol. 2020, 22, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Boestfleisch, C.; Wagenseil, N.B.; Buhmann, A.K.; Seal, C.E.; Wade, E.M.; Muscolo, A.; Papenbrock, J. Manipulating the antioxidant capacity of halophytes to increase their cultural and economic value through saline cultivation. Aob Plants 2014, 6, plu046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hafsi, C.; Falleh, H.; Saada, M.; Ksouri, R.; Abdelly, C. Potassium deficiency alters growth, photosynthetic performance, secondary metabolites content, and related antioxidant capacity in Sulla carnosa grown under moderate salinity. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 118, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vafadar, F.; Amooaghaie, R.; Ehsanzadeh, P.; Ghanadian, M. Salinity stress alters ion homeostasis, antioxidant activities and the production of rosmarinic acid, luteolin and apigenin in Dracocephalum kotschyiboiss. Biologia 2020, 75, 2147–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, L.; Li, W.; Yang, H.; Wu, W.; Ma, L.; Huang, T.; Wang, X. Physiological and biochemical responses of a medicinal halophyte Limonium bicolor (Bag.) Kuntze to salt-stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 1371–1377. [Google Scholar]
  60. Souid, A.; Gabriele, M.; Longo, V.; Pucci, L.; Bellani, L.; Smaoui, A.; Abdelly, C.; Hamed, K.B. Salt tolerance of the halophyte Limonium delicatulum is more associated with antioxidant enzyme activities than phenolic compounds. Funct. Plant Biol. 2016, 43, 607–619. [Google Scholar]
  61. Rodrigues, M.J.; Monteiro, I.; Placines, C.; Castaneda-Loaiza, V.; Slusarczyk, S.; Matkowski, A.; Pereira, C.; Pousao-Ferreira, P.; Custodio, L. The irrigation salinity and harvesting affect the growth, chemical profile and biological activities of Polygonum maritimum L. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sonar, B.A.; Nivas, M.D.; Gaikward, D.K.; Chavan, P.D. Assessment of salinity-induced antioxidative defense system in Colubrina asiatica Brong. J. Stress Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 7, 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, L.X.; Pan, D.Z.; Lv, X.J.; Cheng, C.L.; Li, J.; Liang, W.Y.; Xing, J.H.; Chen, W. A multilevel investigation to discover why Kandelia candel thrives in high salinity. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 2486–2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Atzori, G.; de Vos, A.C.; van Rijsselberghe, M.; Vignolini, P.; Rozema, J.; Mancuso, S.; van Bodegom, P.M. Effects of increased seawater salinity irrigation on growth and quality of the edible halophyte Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L. Under field conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 187, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Falleh, H.; Jalleli, I.; Ksouri, R.; Boulaaba, M.; Guyot, S.; Magne, C.; Abdelly, C. Effect of salt treatment on phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of two Mesembryanthemum edule provenances. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 52, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Slama, I.; M’Rabet, R.; Ksouri, R.; Talbi, O.; Debez, A.; Abdelly, C. Water deficit stress applied only or combined with salinity affects physiological parameters and antioxidant capacity in Sesuvium portulacastrum. Flora 2015, 213, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bueno, M.; Lendinez, M.L.; Calero, J.; Cordovilla, M.D. Salinity responses of three halophytes from inland saltmarshes of Jaen (southern Spain). Flora 2020, 266, 151589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. de Souza, M.M.; Mendes, C.R.; Doncato, K.B.; Badiale-Furlong, E.; Costa, C.S.B. Growth, phenolics, photosynthetic pigments, and antioxidant response of two new genotypes of sea asparagus (Salicornia neei Lag.) to salinity under greenhouse and field conditions. Agriculture 2018, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Ventura, Y.; Myrzabayeva, M.; Alikulov, Z.; Omarov, R.; Khozin-Goldberg, I.; Sagi, M. Effects of salinity on flowering, morphology, biomass accumulation and leaf metabolites in an edible halophyte. AoB Plants 2014, 6, plu053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sahito, Z.A.; Khan, D.; Ahmed, N. Some parameters of growth of river Cooba seedlings under salt stress. Int. J. Biol. Biotechnol. 2013, 10, 339–352. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ashour, H.A.; Esmail, S.E.A.; Kotb, M.S. Alleviative effects of chitosan or humic acid on Vitex trifolia ‘purpurea’ grown under salinity stress. Ornam. Hortic.-Rev. Bras. De Hortic. Ornam. 2021, 27, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kathiresan, K.; Ravi, A.V. Seasonal changes in tannin content of mangrove leaves. Indian For. 1990, 116, 390–392. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bautista, I.; Boscaiu, M.; Lidon, A.; Llinares, J.V.; Lull, C.; Donat, M.P.; Mayoral, O.; Vicente, O. Environmentally induced changes in antioxidant phenolic compounds levels in wild plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2016, 38, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Agoramoorthy, G.; Chen, F.A.; Venkatesalu, V.; Kuo, D.H.; Shea, P.C. Evaluation of antioxidant polyphenols from selected mangrove plants of India. Asian J. Chem. 2008, 20, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar]
  75. Malcolm, C. Economic and environmental aspects of the sustainable use of halophytic forages. In Halophytes and Biosaline Agriculture; Choukr-Allah, R., Malcolm, C.V., Hamdy, A., Eds.; Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 363–376. [Google Scholar]
  76. El Shaer, H.M. Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants as potential forage for ruminants in the near east region. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 91, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Barrett-Lennard, E.G.; Norman, H.C. Agriculture in salinising landscapes in southern Australia selected research snapshots. In Future of Sustainable Agriculture in Saline Environments; Negacz, K., Vellinga, P., Barrett-Lennard, E., Choukr-Allah, R., Elzengo, T., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FA, USA, 2021; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rao, N.K.; McCann, I.; Shahid, S.A.; Butta, K.U.R.; Al Araj, B.; Ismail, S. Sustainable use of salt-degraded and abandoned farms for forage production using halophytic grasses. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Masters, D.; Tiong, M.; Vercoe, P.; Norman, H. The nutritive value of river saltbush (Atriplex amnicola) when grown in different concentrations of sodium chloride irrigation solution. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 91, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Temel, S.; Surmen, M.; Tan, M. Effects of growth stages on the nutritive value of specific halophyte species in saline grasslands. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2015, 25, 1419–1428. [Google Scholar]
  81. Norman, H.C.; Revell, D.K.; Mayberry, D.E.; Rintoul, A.J.; Wilmot, M.G.; Masters, D.G. Comparison of in vivo organic matter digestion of native Australian shrubs by sheep to in vitro and in sacco predictions. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 91, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kafi, M.; Salehi, M. Potentially domesticable Chenopodiaceae halophytes of Iran. In Sabkha Ecosystems, Vol vi: Asia/Pacific; Gul, B., Boer, B., Khan, M.A., Clusener Godt, M., Hameed, A., Eds.; Tasks for vegetation science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 49, pp. 269–288. [Google Scholar]
  83. Watson, M.C. Atriplex species as irrigated forage crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1990, 32, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Watson, M.C.; Oleary, J.W. Performance of Atriplex species in the San Joaquin valley, California, under irrigation and with mechanical harvests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 43, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Colomer, J.S.; Passera, C.B. The nutritional-value of Atriplex spp as fodder for arid regions. J. Arid. Environ. 1990, 19, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Diaz, F.J.; Benes, S.E.; Grattan, S.R. Field performance of halophytic species under irrigation with saline drainage water in the San Joaquin valley of California. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 118, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Norman, H.C.; Masters, D.G.; Barrett-Lennard, E.G. Halophytes as forages in saline landscapes: Interactions between plant genotype and environment change their feeding value to ruminants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Norman, H.C.; Duncan, E.G.; Masters, D.G. Halophytic shrubs accumulate minerals associated with antioxidant pathways. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Waldron, B.L.; Sagers, J.K.; Peel, M.D.; Rigby, C.W.; Bugbee, B.; Creech, J.E. Salinity reduces the forage quality of forage Kochia: A halophytic Chenopodiaceae shrub. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 73, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Esfahan, E.Z.; Assareh, M.H.; Jafari, M.; Jafari, A.A.; Javadi, S.A.; Karimi, G. Phenological effects on forage quality of two halophyte species Atriplex leucoclada and Suaeda vermiculata in four saline rangelands of Iran. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 999–1003. [Google Scholar]
  91. Glenn, E.; Tanner, R.; Miyamoto, S.; Fitzsimmons, K.; Boyer, J. Water use, productivity and forage quality of the halophyte Atriplex nummularia grown on saline waste water in a desert environment. J. Arid. Environ. 1998, 38, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Al-Dakheel, A.J.; Hussain, M.I.; Rahman, A.Q.M.A. Impact of irrigation water salinity on agronomical and quality attributes of Cenchrus ciliaris L. Accessions. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 159, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mahmood, S.; Irshad, A.; Ishtiaq, S. Bunch grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.): A potential forage crop for saline environment. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 39, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ashour, N.I.; Serag, M.S.; ElHaleem, A.K.A.; Mekki, B.B. Forage production from three grass species under saline irrigation in egypt. J. Arid. Environ. 1997, 37, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vago, M.E.; Jaurena, G.; Estevez, J.M.; Castro, M.A.; Zavala, J.A.; Ciancia, M. Salt stress on Lotus tenuis triggers cell wall polysaccharide changes affecting their digestibility by ruminants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 166, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Rogers, M.E.; Colmer, T.D.; Frost, K.; Henry, D.; Cornwall, D.; Hulm, E.; Deretic, J.; Hughes, S.R.; Craig, A.D. Diversity in the genus Melilotus for tolerance to salinity and waterlogging. Plant Soil 2008, 304, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Muscolo, A.; Panuccio, M.R.; Eshel, A. Ecophysiology of Pennisetum clandestinum: A valuable salt tolerant grass. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Reiahisamani, N.; Esmaeili, M.; Sima, N.A.K.; Zaefarian, F.; Zeinalabedini, M. Assessment of the oil content of the seed produced by Salicornia L., along with its ability to produce forage in saline soils. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2018, 65, 1879–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Fowler, J.L.; Hageman, J.H.; Moore, K.J.; Suzukida, M.; Assadian, H.; Valenzuela, M. Salinity effects on forage quality of Russian thistle. J. Range Manag. 1992, 45, 559–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Aslam, Z.; Bhatti, A.S.; Mujtaba, M. Aster tripolium: A winter forage: For salt-affected soils. In Halophytes in Different Climates; Aslam, Z., Bhatti, A.S., Mujtaba, M., Eds.; Backhuys: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  101. Abideen, Z.; Qasim, M.; Rizvi, R.F.; Gul, B.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M.A. Oilseed halophytes: A potential source of biodiesel using saline degraded lands. Biofuels 2015, 6, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abideen, Z.; Hameed, A.; Koyro, H.-W.; Gul, B.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M. Sustainable biofuel production from non-food sources—An overview. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2014, 26, 1057–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Abideen, Z.; Ansari, R.; Hasnain, M.; Flowers, T.J.; Werner-Koyro, H.; El-Kablawy, A.; Abouleish, M.; Khan, M.A. Potential use of saline resources for biofuel production using halophytes and marine algae: Prospects and pitfalls. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1026063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Zhao, K.F.; Fan, H.; Ungar, I.A. Survey of halophyte species in China. Plant Sci. 2002, 163, 491–498. [Google Scholar]
  105. Menzel, U.; Lieth, H. Halophyte database vers. 2.0 update. In Cash Crop Halophytes; Lieth, H., Mochtchenko, M., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 221–223. [Google Scholar]
  106. Khan, M.A.; Qaiser, M. Halophytes of Pakistan: Characteristics, distribution and potential economic usages. In Sabkha Ecosystems; Khan, M., Kust, G.S., Barth, H.-J., Boer, B., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 129–153. [Google Scholar]
  107. Jacobsen, T.; Adams, R.M. Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture. Science 1958, 128, 1251–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. O’Leary, J.W. The agricultural use of native plants on problem soils. In Soil Mineral Stresses: Approaches to Crop Improvement; Yeo, A.R., Flowers, T.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1994; pp. 127–143. [Google Scholar]
  109. Raghuvanshi, R.; Srivastava, A.K.; Verulkar, S.; Suprasanna, P. Unlocking allelic diversity for sustainable development of salinity stress tolerance in rice. Curr. Genom. 2021, 22, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Singh, R.K.; Kota, S.; Flowers, T.J. Salt tolerance in rice: Seedling and reproductive stage QTL mapping come of age. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 3495–3533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mujeeb-Kazi, A.; Munns, R.; Rasheed, A.; Ogbonnaya, F.C.; Ali, N.; Hollington, P.; Dundas, I.; Saeed, N.; Wang, R.; Rengasamy, P.; et al. Breeding strategies for structuring salinity tolerance in wheat. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 155, pp. 121–187. [Google Scholar]
  112. Naeem, M.; Iqbal, M.; Shakeel, A.; Ul-Allah, S.; Hussain, M.; Rehman, A.; Zafar, Z.U.; Athar, H.U.R.; Ashraf, M. Genetic basis of ion exclusion in salinity stressed wheat: Implications in improving crop yield. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 92, 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Panta, S.; Flowers, T.; Lane, P.; Doyle, R.; Haros, G.; Shabala, S. Halophyte agriculture: Success stories. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 107, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Al-Azzawi, M.J.; Flowers, T.J. Distribution and potential uses of halophytes within the Gulf Cooperation Council States. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Navarro-Torre, S.; Garcia-Caparros, P.; Nogales, A.; Abreu, M.M.; Santos, E.; Cortinhas, L.; Caperta, A.D. Sustainable agricultural management of saline soils in arid and semi-arid Mediterranean regions through halophytes, microbial and soil-based technologies. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2023, 212, 105397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Eshel, A.; Oren, I.; Alekperov, C.; Eilam, T.; Zilberstain, A. Biomass production by desert halophytes: Alleviating the pressure on scarce resources of arable soil and fresh water. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 5, 48–53. [Google Scholar]
  117. Breckle, S.-W. Is sustainable agriculture with seawater irrigation realistic? In Salinity and Water Stress Improving Crop Efficiency; Ashraf, M., Ozturk, M., Athar, H.R., Eds.; Tasks for Vegetation Sciences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 187–196. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Ranking of families of salt-tolerant plants (those tolerating an electrical conductivity of a saturated soil past, ECe, of at least 7.8 dS m−1) and halophytes (defined as those plants with an ability to grow in at least 200 mM NaCl [47]; we also approximated this to a conductivity of 20 dS m−1) in the database eHALOPH as of July 2022. The 20 families listed accounted for 81% of both all species of salt-tolerant plants and of halophytes.
Table 1. Ranking of families of salt-tolerant plants (those tolerating an electrical conductivity of a saturated soil past, ECe, of at least 7.8 dS m−1) and halophytes (defined as those plants with an ability to grow in at least 200 mM NaCl [47]; we also approximated this to a conductivity of 20 dS m−1) in the database eHALOPH as of July 2022. The 20 families listed accounted for 81% of both all species of salt-tolerant plants and of halophytes.
All Salt-Tolerant PlantsRankHalophytes
1Amaranthaceae1Amaranthaceae
2Poaceae2Poaceae
3Fabaceae3Fabaceae
4Plumbaginaceae4Plumbaginaceae
5Asteraceae5Zosteraceae
6Cyperaceae6Asteraceae
7Tamaricaceae7Hydrocharitaceae
8Hydrocharitaceae8Rhizophoraceae
9Myrtaceae9Cymodoceaceae
10Aizoaceae10Myrtaceae
11Zosteraceae11Acanthaceae
12Brassicaceae12Aizoaceae
13Rhizophoraceae13Cyperaceae
14Solanaceae14Brassicaceae
15Cymodoceaceae15Tamaricaceae
16Malvaceae16Malvaceae
17Acanthaceae17Posidoniaceae
18Apiaceae18Casuarinaceae
19Arecaceae19Lythraceae
20Zygophyllaceae20Solanaceae
Table
Table 2. The main categories of economic uses used in eHALOPH and based on The Survey of Economic Plants for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (SEPASAL; http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/sepasal/ accessed 1 June 2022) used by Aronson [33].
Table 2. The main categories of economic uses used in eHALOPH and based on The Survey of Economic Plants for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (SEPASAL; http://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/sepasal/ accessed 1 June 2022) used by Aronson [33].
CodeUseSub CodeUse
000.0FOOD AND DRINK0100.0Vegetables and fruit
0200.0Beverages
0300.0Cooking fats and oils
0400.0Miscellaneous food and drinks
0500.0Breeding stock
CROP LISTED BY FAO0001.0
1000.0DOMESTIC PRODUCTS1200.0Soaps
1300.0Cosmetics
1400.0Dental
1700.0Roofing thatching and green roofs
2000.0TIMBER2100.0Fuel
2200.0Sawn timber
2400.0Construction timber
2500.0Carpentry
3000.0FORAGE3100.0Grazing
3200.0Browse
3300.0Fodder
4000.0LAND USE4500.0Soil stabilization
4600.0Soil improvement
4700.0Salt tolerance
4800.0Ornamental
5000.0FIBERS5100.0Cordage
5200.0Textiles
6000.0TOXINS6000.0
7000.0MEDICAL7100.0General including traditional medicine
7160.0Antibiotics
8000.0CHEMICALS8100.0Carbohydrates
8200.0Lipids, Essential oils
8300.0Bioenergy/Biofuel
Table
Table 3. The economic uses of salt-tolerant plants (all species in eHALOPH) and halophytes as defined by Flowers and Colmer [47], see Table 1. The percentage values are of total uses. The numbers in columns ‘All’ and ‘Halophytes’ are for all publications in the main and subcategories of the SEPASAL divisions—see Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1.
Table 3. The economic uses of salt-tolerant plants (all species in eHALOPH) and halophytes as defined by Flowers and Colmer [47], see Table 1. The percentage values are of total uses. The numbers in columns ‘All’ and ‘Halophytes’ are for all publications in the main and subcategories of the SEPASAL divisions—see Table 1 and Supplementary Table S1.
SEPASAL CodeSEPASAL DescriptorAll%Halo-Phytes%
0FOOD AND DRINK; Crops15211.110711.7
1000DOMESTIC PRODUCTS 392.9272.9
2000TIMBER 805.9566.1
3000FORAGE 27520.118920.6
4000LAND USE 20615.114916.2
5000FIBERS272.0141.5
6000TOXINS423.1252.7
7000MEDICAL 40429.625828.1
8000CHEMICALS 14010.39310.1
Totals1365100918100
Table
Table 4. Families of salt-tolerant plants with the highest number of species with reported medical use as recorded in eHALOPH in July 2022.
Table 4. Families of salt-tolerant plants with the highest number of species with reported medical use as recorded in eHALOPH in July 2022.
FamilyNumber%Sum %% All Species in Family
Fabaceae5012 54
Amaranthaceae42102313
Asteraceae2462947
Plumbaginaceae2153438
Poaceae2053913
Rhizophoraceae1644384
Solanaceae1234667
Apiaceae1134985
Malvaceae1135173
Table
Table 5. The number of families of salt-tolerant plants reported to contain flavonoids, phenols, polyphenols, and tannins.
Table 5. The number of families of salt-tolerant plants reported to contain flavonoids, phenols, polyphenols, and tannins.
MetaboliteFlavonoidsPhenols and PolyphenolsTannins
Number of families with metabolite35 (116 spp)36 (102 spp)11 (21 spp)
Families accounting for at least 70% of occurrences and % of total reported for the metaboliteAmaranthaceae18Amaranthaceae22Amaranthaceae
Rhizophoraceae
Acanthaceae
Aizoaceae
Fabaceae		27
19
12
8
8
Plumbaginaceae10Fabaceae7
Fabaceae9Plumbaginaceae7
Asteraceae9Asteraceae6
Hydrocharitaceae3Rhizophoraceae6
Poaceae3Brassicaceae4
Rhizophoraceae3Poaceae4
Aizoaceae3Acanthaceae3
Apiaceae3Aizoaceae3
Apocynaceae3Arecaceae3
Brassicaceae3Cymodoceaceae3
Cyperaceae3Malvaceae3
Table
Table 6. The effect of salinity on the concentration of flavonoids in salt-tolerant plants. DW, dry weight; FW, fresh weight.
Table 6. The effect of salinity on the concentration of flavonoids in salt-tolerant plants. DW, dry weight; FW, fresh weight.
FamilyGenus SpeciesEffect of Salt on Concentration of FlavonoidsReferences
AizoaceaeSesuvium portulacastrum200 and 500 mM NaCl increased some and decreased others of a large range of flavonoids (DW basis)[52]
AmaranthaceaeHalocnemum strobilaceumNo significant effect with increasing soil K2SO4 to 135 kg ha−1 soil (presumed DW basis)[53]
AmaranthaceaeSalicornia brachiata200 and 500 mM NaCl increased a large range of flavonoids (DW basis)[52]
AmaranthaceaeSuaeda fruticosaNo effect of 500 mM NaCl on kaempferol at 400 ppm CO2. A 10 -fold decrease in kaempferol in 500 mM NaCl at 900 ppm CO2 (presumed DW basis)[54]
AmaranthaceaeSuaeda maritima200 and 500 mM NaCl increased some and decreased others of a large range of flavonoids (DW basis)[52]
AmaranthaceaeSuaeda monoicaA 10-fold increase in kaempferol in 500 mM NaCl at 900 ppm CO2 (presumed DW basis)[54]
ApocynaceaeApocynum venetumOver the range 50 to 400 mM NaCl, kaempferol and quercetin increased to maximal values at 100 mM NaCl (DW basis)[55]
AsteraceaeTripolium pannonicumNo effect of 15 or 50 PSU over 5 weeks (FW basis)[56]
BrassicaceaeLepidium latifoliumIncreased over 24 h exposure to 30 PSU (FW basis)[56]
FabaceaeSulla carnosaNo effect of 100 mM NaCl (DW basis)[57]
LamiaceaeDracocephalum kotschyiIncreased over the range 25–75 mM NaCl then declined at 100 mM (DW basis)[58]
NitrariaceaeNitraria schoberiIncreased with increasing soil K2SO4 to 135 kg ha−1 soil (presumed DW basis)[53]
PlantaginaceaePlantago coronopusIncreased (by 74%) over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
PlumbaginaceaeLimonium bicolorNo effect as NaCl increased to 200 mM; decreased at 300 mM NaCl (DW basis)[59]
PlumbaginaceaeLimonium delicatulumSmall increase to 200 mM NaCl over the range 50 to 500 mM; then a decline (DW basis)[60]
PolygonaceaePolygonum maritimumDeclined as NaCl increased to 300 mM (DW basis)[61]
RhamnaceaeColubrina asiaticaIncreased from 0 through 100, 200 and 300 mM NaCl (DW basis)[62]
RhizophoraceaeBruguiera cylindricaNo effect of 15 or 50 PSU over 7 weeks (FW basis)[56]
RhizophoraceaeKandelia candelIncreased from 0, through 200 and 500 mM NaCl (FW basis)[63]
Table
Table 7. The effect of salinity on the concentration of phenols and polyphenols in salt-tolerant plants. DW dry weight; FW fresh weight.
Table 7. The effect of salinity on the concentration of phenols and polyphenols in salt-tolerant plants. DW dry weight; FW fresh weight.
FamilyGenus SpeciesEffect of Salt on Concentration of Phenols and PolyphenolsReferences
AizoaceaeMesembryanthemum crystallinumNo effect of seawater concentrations with EC values of 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 35 dS m−1[64]
AizoaceaeMesembryanthemum eduleEffect of 300 and 600 mM NaCl checked on range of phenols and polyphenols in two provenances. Polyphenols declined in both (DW basis)[65]
AizoaceaeSesuvium portulacastrum200 mM NaCl had no effect on total polyphenols in leaves, but concentrations (DW basis) were reduced in stems and roots[66]
AmaranthaceaeAtriplex halimusDecreased over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
AmaranthaceaeAtriplex portulacoidesDecreased over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
AmaranthaceaeAtriplex prostrataTotal phenols (DW basis) increased in leaves from 10 through 100 to 200 and 300 mM NaCl [67]
AmaranthaceaeSalicornia dolichostachyaDecreased over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
AmaranthaceaeSalicornia neeiNo effect of NaCl concentrations up to 769 mM on phenolics of two genotypes[68]
ApiaceaeCrithmum maritimumSmall effects of 50 or 100 mM NaCl on 4 genotypes: total polyphenols either increased, decreased of were unaffected[69]
AsteraceaeTripolium pannonicumNo effect of 15 PSU over 5 weeks Increased to 22.5 PSU; no further increase at 30 PSU (FW basis)[56]
BrassicaceaeLepidium latifoliumIncreased over 24 h exposure to 30 PSU. Decreased over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
FabaceaeAcacia stenophyllaPhenols increased by 156% at seawater salinity increased from 0.6 to 16.7 dS m−1 (FW basis)[70]
FabaceaeSulla carnosaTotal polyphenols increased in 100 mM NaCl (DW basis)[57]
LamiaceaeDracocephalum kotschyiIncreased over the range 25–75 mM NaCl then declined at 100 mM (DW basis)[58]
LamiaceaeVitex trifoliaElevating salinity to 5000 ppm increased concentration of total phenols compared to 260 ppm (DW basis)[71]
PlantaginaceaePlantago coronopusTotal phenols (DW basis) increased in leaves from 10 through 100 to 200 mM NaCl then no change at 300 mM[67]
PlantaginaceaePlantago coronopusIncreased over 5 weeks at 15 PSU (FW basis)[56]
PlumbaginaceaeFrankenia pulverulentaTotal phenols (DW basis) increased in leaves from 10 through 100 to 200 mM NaCl then no change at 300 mM.[67]
PlumbaginaceaeLimonium bicolorPhenols decreased (79%) as NaCl increased to 300 mM NaCl (DW basis)[59]
RhizophoraceaeBruguiera cylindricaIncreased from 15 to 50 PSU over 7 weeks (FW basis)[56]
RhizophoraceaeKandelia candelIncreased from 0, through 200 and 500 mM NaCl (FW basis)[63]
Table
Table 8. Families of salt-tolerant plants with the highest number of species with reported use as forage as recorded in eHALOPH in July 2022.
Table 8. Families of salt-tolerant plants with the highest number of species with reported use as forage as recorded in eHALOPH in July 2022.
SEPASAL CodesForage
3000		Grazing
3100		Browse
3200		Fodder
3300		All%
Amaranthaceae362264010438
Poaceae38261198468
Fabaceae2461124384
Cyperaceae3100485
All families112641386275100
Table
Table 9. Examples of halophytes where measures of the effects of salinity on quality have been evaluated. Data followed the review of 192 publications on 108 species.
Table 9. Examples of halophytes where measures of the effects of salinity on quality have been evaluated. Data followed the review of 192 publications on 108 species.
SpeciesEffect of Increasing Salinity on QualityReferences
Atriplex amnicolaSome quality measures reduced; was genotypic variation[79]
Atriplex gardneriForage quality much reduced[89]
Atriplex leucocladaHigher quality at lower salinity site and dropped with age[90]
Atriplex nummulariaLittle effect of salinity on yield or nutrients[91]
Bassia prostrataForage quality reduced[89]
Cenchrus ciliarisTolerant genotypes identified with adequate nutritive value[92]
Carbohydrate, protein, and micronutrients increased per unit of dry weight[93]
Diplachne fusca (Leptochloa fusca)Little effect on crude protein, fibre, fat, and soluble carbohydrate on dry weight basis[94]
Lotus tenuisYield decreased but carbohydrates more digestible[95]
Melilotus albusDigestible dry matter declined but fibre maintained at high salinity[96]
Melilotus indicusNo digestible dry matter beyond 80 mM NaCl but fibre maintained[96]
Melilotus siculusDigestible dry matter retained but fibre decreased at high salinity[96]
Pennisetum clandestinumThe percentage of crude protein and crude fibre preserved[97]
Salicornia europaeaSeed oil content increased[98]
Salsola tragusTotal nitrogen increased but fibre decreased on a dry weight basis[99]
Sporobolus pumilus (Spartina patens)Little effect on crude protein, fibre, fat, and soluble carbohydrate on dry weight basis[94]
Sporobolus virginicusLittle effect on crude protein, fibre, fat, and soluble carbohydrate on dry weight basis[94]
Suaeda vermiculataHigher quality at lower salinity site and dropped with age[90]
Tripolium pannonicumLittle effect on total nitrogen or micronutrients[100]
Table
Table 10. Families of salt-tolerant plants used for or with potential uses in bioremediation. The figures are the number of species for which there is at least one record in eHALOPH of use for bioremediation and the percentage show the proportion of the total 269 species.
Table 10. Families of salt-tolerant plants used for or with potential uses in bioremediation. The figures are the number of species for which there is at least one record in eHALOPH of use for bioremediation and the percentage show the proportion of the total 269 species.
FamiliesNo.%
Amaranthaceae6323
Poaceae5320
Fabaceae249
Cyperaceae124
Asteraceae104
Tamaricaceae93
Rhizophoraceae83
Myrtaceae73
Aizoaceae62
Juncaceae62
Zosteraceae62
Brassicaceae52
Casuarinaceae41
Hydrocharitaceae41
Table
Table 11. Families of salt-tolerant plants used to provide fuel, fuelwood, charcoal, or bioenergy. The figures are the number of species for which there is at least one record in eHALOPH of use for one of the uses and the percentage show the proportion of the total 97 species.
Table 11. Families of salt-tolerant plants used to provide fuel, fuelwood, charcoal, or bioenergy. The figures are the number of species for which there is at least one record in eHALOPH of use for one of the uses and the percentage show the proportion of the total 97 species.
FamiliesNumberPercentage
Fabaceae1415
Amaranthaceae1213
Poaceae1011
Rhizophoraceae910
Tamaricaceae910
Arecaceae77
Casuarinaceae55
Myrtaceae55
Combretaceae44
Malvaceae44
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

Garcia-Caparros, P.; Al-Azzawi, M.J.; Flowers, T.J. Economic Uses of Salt-Tolerant Plants. Plants 2023, 12, 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12142669

AMA Style

Garcia-Caparros P, Al-Azzawi MJ, Flowers TJ. Economic Uses of Salt-Tolerant Plants. Plants. 2023; 12(14):2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12142669

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garcia-Caparros, Pedro, Mohammed J. Al-Azzawi, and Timothy J. Flowers. 2023. "Economic Uses of Salt-Tolerant Plants" Plants 12, no. 14: 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12142669

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