Next Article in Journal
Karrikinolide1 (KAR1), a Bioactive Compound from Smoke, Improves the Germination of Morphologically Dormant Apium graveolens L. Seeds by Reducing Indole-3-Acetic Acid (IAA) Levels
Previous Article in Journal
Vitis rotundifolia Genes Introgressed with RUN1 and RPV1: Poor Recombination and Impact on V. vinifera Berry Transcriptome
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impacts of Climate Change on the Distribution of Suitable Habitats and Ecological Niche for Trollius Wildflowers in Ili River Valley, Tacheng, Altay Prefecture
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Tolerance Mechanisms of Olive Tree (Olea europaea) under Saline Conditions

by
Mohamed El Yamani
1,*,† and
María del Pilar Cordovilla
2,*,†
1
Laboratory of Applied Sciences for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Essaouira School of Technology, Cadi Ayyad University, B.P. 383, Essaouira 40000, Morocco
2
Center for Advances Studies in Olive Grove and Olive Oils, Faculty of Experimental Science, University of Jaén, Paraje Las Lagunillas, E-23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2024, 13(15), 2094; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13152094 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 19 May 2024 / Revised: 19 July 2024 / Accepted: 20 July 2024 / Published: 29 July 2024

Abstract

:
The olive tree (Olea europaea L.) is an evergreen tree that occupies 19% of the woody crop area and is cultivated in 67 countries on five continents. The largest olive production region is concentrated in the Mediterranean basin, where the olive tree has had an enormous economic, cultural, and environmental impact since the 7th century BC. In the Mediterranean region, salinity stands out as one of the main abiotic stress factors significantly affecting agricultural production. Moreover, climate change is expected to lead to increased salinization in this region, threatening olive productivity. Salt stress causes combined damage by osmotic stress and ionic toxicity, restricting olive growth and interfering with multiple metabolic processes. A large variability in salinity tolerance among olive cultivars has been described. This paper aims to synthesize information from the published literature on olive adaptations to salt stress and its importance in salinity tolerance. The morphological, physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of olive tolerance to salt stress are reviewed.

1. Introduction

1.1. Importance of the Olive Tree

The cultivated olive tree Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. europaea L. originated from Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. sylvestris (Mill) Lehr by artificial selection from wild populations [1]. This evergreen tree is believed to have been one of the first major domesticated fruit crops in the Old World. In the Chalcolithic Levant, evidence for the existence of the olive tree has been found from about 6800–6300 cal BP [2]. The olive tree originated on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in what is now southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Israel. From there, it spread to populate all countries bordering the Mediterranean [3]. Since then, it has exerted a notable influence on the Mediterranean economy, history, culture, and environment [4,5,6,7], where the olive tree is considered to be the dominant fruit tree in the area [8].
Currently, olive cultivation is present in sixty-seven countries across five continents (Figure 1), while its consumption extends to 179 countries. Worldwide, about 11,594,987 ha of olive trees have been documented [9]. Of the olives produced, 13.39% are used for table olives, and 86.61% for olive oil production. Europe has the world’s largest area under olive cultivation and production. However, productivity is highest in Oceania for table olives and olive oil, followed by America for table olives and Europe for olive oil [9] (Suplementary Figure S1).
The olive tree is a species adapted to the semiarid regions of the Mediterranean climate, where it has traditionally been grown in rainfed conditions [10] with a low-density planting system (between 70 and 120 trees/ha) [11]. However, the growing demand for olive products has led to an intensive (200–500 trees/ha) or super-intensive (2500 trees/ha) cultivation model, along with the introduction of irrigation. In 2021, 60% of olive growing production was rainfed, while 40% was irrigated [9] (Supplementary Figure S2).
The Mediterranean region accounts for the majority of olive production, with 97% of the world’s olive oil produced there [12]. Among the top 10 producers of olive oil and table olives, Spain stands out for its high production, accounting for 43.58% of olive oil production and 28.86% of table olive production (Supplementary Figure S3). For olive oil production, Italy (9.61%), Tunisia (7.94%), and Greece (6.77%) also stand out, and for table olive production, Turkey (20.32%), Egypt (19.80%), Algeria (11.06%), and Morocco (5.68%) [13,14]. World olive oil production has doubled in the last three decades (Figure 2). This is due to the balanced composition of the oil and its link with greater longevity and lower cardiovascular disease rate, cancer, and cognitive decline with age [15,16,17].
More than 2600 olive cultivars are cultivated worldwide, many of which are traditional and ancient, with little representation in modern olive growing (Table 1). These cultivars have different genetic characteristics and respond differently to biotic and abiotic stresses [18], which offers a wide field of study in the adaptation of an olive grove to a changing environment.

1.2. Problems of Salinity in Relation to Olive Cultivation

Soil salinity affects approximately 900 million ha of cultivated land worldwide [19] (Table 2). Ludwig et al. [20] project that 30% of arable land will be lost in the next 25 years, increasing to 50% by the middle of the 21st century. In saline soils, the accumulation of soluble salts retains water and accentuates the problem of desertification. As a consequence, the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil increases. A soil is considered saline when it has an EC ≥ 4 dS/m (about 40 mM NaCl), and the percentage of exchangeable sodium is less than 15% [21]. However, the type of plant, the soil–water regime, and climatology influence the threshold value above which harmful effects on the plant occur [22].
In arid and semi-arid climates, high evaporation and insufficient leaching lead to salt accumulation, resulting in the development of saline soils [26]. Additionally, saline groundwater rising by capillary action through the soil profile and subsequent evaporation also contribute to salt accumulation in the soil [27]. Therefore, salinity is one of the main abiotic stresses that severely affect agricultural production in arid and semi-arid regions such as the Mediterranean basin [28,29].
Groundwater contamination is a serious global problem, especially in arid and semi-arid areas. Groundwater salinization can be due to factors such as climate, geology, wastewater recycling, irrigation return flows, septic tank leachates, and saline water intrusion [19,30]. This issue is critical because groundwater is the natural resource that most supports the socio-economic development of communities by providing water for agricultural, domestic, and industrial activities [31].
Advancements in irrigated agriculture are indispensable to feed a world population that is likely to exceed 10 billion by 2100 [32]. Olive cultivation has traditionally been rainfed; however, irrigation is becoming increasingly important in the new olive production scenarios. This poses a challenge for the Mediterranean olive basin, where water scarcity limits the availability of freshwater for agriculture, leading to excessive use of saline groundwater and synthetic fertilizers [29,33]. In coastal areas, the use of saline water (EC > 2.0 dS/m) for crop irrigation may be a possible alternative to cope with water scarcity [34]. Using wastewater could also be an interesting practice in sustainable agriculture, as it supplies nutrients that improve soil fertility. However, it can also cause serious salinity issues [35,36,37,38]. Furthermore, according to the Fifth Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, precipitation is likely to decrease, increasing the risk of summer drought [39]. This, together with rising temperatures, will exacerbate salinization in the Mediterranean area.
Soil salinization causes salt stress in most cultivated plants, which has a direct impact on food quality and quantity [19]. Salt-tolerant crop cultivars have been developed using transgenic technologies and conventional breeding approaches. However, these two approaches are insufficient, labor- and time-intensive, and alternative technologies need to be used simultaneously to promote sustainable agriculture. In recent years, several strategies have been developed to mitigate the impact of salt stress on crops [40,41,42,43].
Saline water intrusion could be mitigated using sustainable strategies such as natural barriers, restoration and conservation of wetlands in inland delta regions, adoption of buffer zones in canals and ditches, and incorporation of aquaculture [43]. Depending on regional characteristics, mangroves, salt marshes, or seagrass meadows may serve as natural barriers [44,45,46]. Wetlands and natural freshwater reservoirs release water to groundwater systems and aquifers, preventing saline water intrusion [47,48]. Buffer zones planted with salt-tolerant vegetation adapted to the local climate help stabilize soil and prevent erosion [49]. Finally, it should be noted that in some crops, such as rice, a rice–shrimp rotation system has been established, which has made it possible to counteract the economic losses due to a decrease in rice crop production as a result of salinity [50,51,52].
Soil salinization requires the adoption of sustainable water management practices, such as the promotion of efficient irrigation for crop production (e.g., sub-irrigation and drip irrigation) and rainwater harvesting [43]. In areas with water scarcity and irregular rainfall, water use efficiency can be improved by combining groundwater and surface water resources for agricultural use [13,53], allowing the development of irrigated agriculture and controlling soil salinization problems and shallow water tables [54,55]. Furthermore, the development of irrigated agriculture demands adequate drainage systems to prevent the accumulation of salts in the soil [14,56].
The integration of halophytes into the cropping system offers an alternative for salinity management in agricultural soils [57,58]. The use of halophytes as cover crops could improve soil quality and decrease salt accumulation [43]. In addition, the Mediterranean area has a high biodiversity of endemic halophytic plants, providing an alternative group of potential new agricultural products to be cultivated in olive groves [59,60,61].
To mitigate or reduce the impact of salt stress on plants, organic amendments such as biochar, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), vermicompost, vermi-wash, and biofertilizers have recently been used [42,62,63,64]. PGPBs are found in the root zone of plants in saline soils and promote salt stress tolerance through various mechanisms. These include biofilm formation, production of extracellular polymeric substances, production of phytohormones, and nitrogen fixation, as well as enhancement photosynthesis, photosynthetic pigments, nutrient uptake, and ionic homeostasis in the plant, and increased antioxidant activities under salt stress conditions [65,66,67]. PGPBs promote plant growth by producing hormones such as auxin, cytokinin, and gibberellin and the reduction of ethylene by 1-aminociclopropano-1-carboxilato (ACC) deaminase [65,68,69]. In this line, it has been reported that exogenous application of gibberellic acid, indole-3-acetic acid, salicylic acid, and brassinosteroids can reduce the effect of salinity in the olive tree, improving plant growth, chlorophyll, K+, and proline concentration, and/or decreasing Na+ and Cl accumulation in the plant [70,71,72,73,74]. Melatonin is an indolamine that has a similar action to indole-3-acetic acid. Melatonin has been reported to improve plant resistance to salt stress by scavenging reactive oxygen species and enhancing antioxidant enzyme activity, photosynthetic efficiency, and metabolite content, as well as regulating stress-associated transcription factors [75,76,77,78,79]. Other studies have shown that the application of nanoparticles such as ZnO-NP can reduce the harmful effects of salt stress by interacting with transcription factors, inducing the production of certain phytohormones and osmoprotective solutes [80,81,82,83,84].

1.3. Overview of Olive Tolerance to Salt Stress

Salt stress tolerance is a multigenic trait involving various mechanisms [85,86]. Olive is generally considered moderately tolerant to salinity [87], although differences in response to salt stress have been observed between cultivars [88,89,90,91,92,93,94].
The mechanisms of salt tolerance in the olive tree are attributable to its ability to limit the transport of salt ions to sensitive shoot organs, causing accumulation in the root, as well as to its capacity to maintain an adequate K+/Na+ ratio in actively growing tissues [17,89,90,95,96,97]. In addition, olive trees can improve their tolerance to salt stress through osmotic adjustment and reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging at the cellular level [58,85,93,94,98,99,100,101].
Sodium ions enter the root cells passively via non-selective ion channels and K+ transporters [102,103,104]. In plants under salt stress, Na+ accumulation in tissues reduces the membrane potential and consequently facilitates Cl uptake under a chemical gradient [105]. Excess Na+ is transported from the root to the shoot by transpiration, damaging the growing tissues [106]. For plant survival, it is essential to maintain Na+ homeostasis under salt stress. The ions exclusion mechanism in leaves has been described in other woody plants and is closely related to the ability to withstand water deficit [107]. The most sensitive olive cultivars to salt stress have less capacity for Na+ exclusion [34,108,109,110,111,112]. This tolerance mechanism is shown by most olive cultivars at levels of 50 mM NaCl or lower [90,112]. Studies on the cultivar ‘Leccino’ at 60 mM NaCl indicated that Na+ uptake by the root starts within a few hours of salt treatment; however, Na+ transport to the shoot requires more time [113,114].
The accumulation of Na+ in the vacuole stimulates the synthesis of osmoprotective solutes to balance the osmotic potential between the cytoplasm and the vacuole [115,116,117,118]. In olive trees, the accumulation of osmolytes in the cytoplasm is an adaptive mechanism against salt stress, helping to regulate osmotic potential from the cellular level to the whole plant [57,85,92,119,120,121,122]. Additionally, salinity induces oxidative stress by generating ROS that can damage proteins, DNA, and membrane lipids [123]. Several studies have addressed the oxidative stress caused by salinity in olive trees [57,91,92,124].
Given predictions that soil salinity could increase in the Mediterranean basin, where the olive tree is an important industrial crop, and considering the serious social and economic consequences of a decrease in olive production, this review aims to provide an overview of advances in research on salt stress in the olive tree, promoting the sustainable development of the crop. Indeed, the olive tree deploys a panoply of mechanisms to ensure its survival, resilience, and productivity in saline environments. These mechanisms include morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and molecular adaptations (Figure 3).

2. Morphological, Anatomical, and Physiological Adaptation of the Olive Tree to Salt Stress

2.1. Morphological and Anatomical Adaptation

Olive trees can undergo morphological and anatomical changes in response to salinity. Plant growth is an often-used morphological indicator in the evaluation of salt stress, although the degree of biomass decline depends on the species and cultivar [90,120,123,124]. In olive plants, growth can be decreased with 50 mM NaCl [57,89,96,98,123,124,125,126]. This decrease in growth due to salinity affects all plant organs [58,91,97,98,124]. Studies have shown the effect of salt is more prominent in the aerial part (shoot + leaves) than in the root at NaCl concentrations above 50 mM, resulting in a higher root/shoot ratio with increasing salinity. Senescent leaf drop may contribute to this effect [89,90,96,98]. Furthermore, the elongation of root cells and shoots exhibits varying tolerance to salt stress [79,127]. The accumulation of salt ions in leaves is manifested by apical burns, necrosis, and old leaf drop [57,91,128,129,130,131,132,133,134] (Figure 4). These toxicity symptoms usually appear at an advanced stage of leaf salinity damage [89,135,136].
The exclusion of saline ions from the shoots of olive trees is related to structural changes in roots. In studies with ‘Barnea’ olive trees, which is considered a moderately salinity tolerant cultivar, an effective exclusion mechanism is the high turnover rate of the Na+ hyperaccumulating fine roots [100]. In higher root orders, salt accumulation and mortality are lower, although they decrease in length and increase in diameter [99,100]. The increase in diameter is due to an increase in the size of the periderm cells, which accumulate Na+ inside them and act as an apoplastic barrier against ion advance. In this way, the exclusion of salt ions from vascular tissues is enhanced [100,113]. In addition, these roots decrease the stele area with salinity and increase the diameter of the xylem vessels, increasing hydraulic conductivity in the root [100,137,138,139]. Consequently, olive tree resistance to salinity has a structural basis.
The higher ion concentration in the outer root layers has also been documented for the primary roots of young olive trees grown under salt stress. In these primary roots, root diameter and cortical cell density decrease, resulting in reduced salt ion uptake. Moreover, apoplastic barriers develop in the exodermis and endodermis of sensitive (‘Leccino’) and tolerant (‘Frantoio’) cultivars by accumulation in suberin lamellae [113,140,141]. Rossi et al. [113] suggest that the speed of apoplastic barrier development could be related to the reduced absorption and translocation of large amounts of Na+ into the shoot. In the ‘Leccino’ cultivar, early translocation of Na+ to the aerial part has been observed. This may be due to the decreased expression of ATPase 1, SOS1 (plasma membrane Na+/H+ antiporter), vacuolar V-type ATPase, and NHX (vacuolar Na+/H+ antiporter) genes in the early phase of root salt response [114].
Olive leaves also show anatomical modifications in response to salinity. Leaf and upper epidermis thickness may increase under salt stress [126,142,143,144]. As leaf thickness increases under salinity stress, internal surface area per unit leaf area increases, internal resistance decreases, and CO2 absorption and water retention potential remain at higher levels [126]. The number of trichomes, the development of collenchyma and sclereids, and the number of conducting vessels increased with salinization [145,146]. An increase in leaf palisade parenchyma under salt stress has been described in different olive cultivars (‘Chondrolia Chalkidikis’, ‘Manzanilla de Sevilla’ and ‘Kalamon, Meski’) [142,146]. However, Fayed et al. [145], in studies with ‘Picual’, ‘Kalamata’, ‘Hamed’ and ‘Toffahi’ cultivars, reported a reduction in the palisade parenchyma and midrib thicknesses. In stems, suber, pericycle fiber, and liber development were observed under salt stress [146].

2.2. Photosynthesis Response

The slower growth of glycophytes under salt stress results from two successive processes: osmotic stress and ionic toxicity in the plant tissue. First, water uptake by the plant is reduced, followed by the entry of excess soil ions into the plant, damaging plant cells. Salt ions inhibit photosynthesis, alter ionic homeostasis, and cause peroxidation of lipid membranes [85,147,148,149,150].
Olive trees under salinity conditions are subject to important physiological changes, such as a marked decrease in the rate of photosynthetic assimilation (A), stomatal conductance (gs), and transpiration (E) [57,89,117,144,150,151,152,153,154,155]. Reduced growth under salinity stress is associated with reduced photosynthesis [89,91,126,154]. Studies with different cultivars have shown that the photosynthetic rate decreased with an increasing level of salt stress [17,57,89,90,91,94,97,110,144,156,157,158]. The effect of salinity on the CO2 assimilation rate varies with salt concentration, cultivar, duration of stress, and plant age [126]. For example, the photosynthetic rate decreased in 4-month-old plantlets of the cultivar ‘Frantoio’ with 12.5 mM NaCl for 35 days [109]. However, in 1-year-old plants of the cultivars ‘Koroneiki’, ‘Kalamata’, ‘Amphisis’ and ‘Kothreiki’ it did not decrease with 50 mM NaCl for 5 months [89]. Similar results were described for 1-year-old plants of the ‘Chemlali’ cultivar grown with 50 mM NaCl for 2 months [146]. Most cultivars studied show a decrease in CO2 assimilation with 100 mM NaCl [57,89,91,109,144,155,159,160,161]. Greater inhibition of the CO2 assimilation rate has been reported in olive cultivars with high rates of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance [94,144,161,162]. In several studies, it has been observed that photosynthesis inhibition is lower in the more tolerant cultivars compared with the more sensitive ones [94,144]. Furthermore, in the salt-tolerant cultivar ‘Chemlali’, a more rapid activation of the stress response was displayed than in the moderately tolerant ‘Koroneiki’, resulting in a later inhibition of photosynthesis [94].
The reduction in the osmotic potential of the olive leaf under salt stress leads to stomata closure [94,109]. This may be due to the accumulation of Na+ ions in stomatal guard cells and can lead to a decrease in internal CO2 availability [57,126,144]. Consequently, the decline in photosynthesis under salt stress may be caused by a decrease in gs due to hydroactive stomatal closure [57,94,153,155,157]. This limitation of CO2 assimilation by stress can result in the production of ROS by over-reduction of the photosynthetic electron transport chain [91,154,157,163]. However, when leaf turgor potential affects stomatal conductance and net CO2 assimilation rate to different degrees, the ionic (as distinct from the osmotic) component of salt stress would control gas exchange performance [159]. In the cultivars ‘Arbequina’, ‘Royal de Cazorla’, ‘Koroneiki’, ‘Fadak86’, ‘Frantoio’, and ‘Leccino’, photosynthesis and stomatal conductance decreased, while the internal CO2 concentration increased under salt stress [91,109,154,159]. In this case, reduced photosynthesis due to salinity could be attributable to alterations in photosynthetic metabolism and the inhibition of Calvin cycle enzymes [91,148,154,164,165,166].
The maximum efficiency of photosystem II photochemistry (Fv/Fm) can decrease up to 0.5 in olive plants under salt stress [144,162]. However, in the early phase of salt stress with 60 mM NaCl (7 days of treatment), no decrease in Fv/Fm of the olive cultivar ‘Leccino’ has been observed [114]. In the ‘Gemlik’ and ‘Kilis’ cultivars, Fv/Fm was unaffected after 15 days of growth with 100 mM NaCl but decreased by about 6% with 200 mM NaCl. In contrast, in the ‘Ayvalik’ cultivar, Fv/Fm decreased by 7% after 15 days with 100 mM NaCl [92] and by 17% in ‘Chétoui’ after 21 days with 200 mM NaCl [117]. Similar results were described for ‘Frantoio’ (35 days at 200 mM NaCl) [162]. Under long-term salt stress conditions, the Fv/Fm ratio decreased only at high salt levels (200 mM NaCl) in the cultivars ‘Arbosana’, ‘Arbequina’, ‘Chétoui’ and ‘Chemlali’ after 5 months of cultivation [144,159] and in ‘Ntopia’ after 6 months [153]. Conversely, no decrease in Fv/Fm has been detected in several cultivars grown for 6 months with high NaCl [157]. The decrease in Fv/Fm under salt stress indicates photoinhibitory damage, likely due to a direct effect of salt ions on leaf tissue, particularly on photosystem II [167,168]. Then, slight decreases in the Fv/Fm ratio affirm that PSII is relatively resilient to NaCl stress and that leaves possess effective photoprotection mechanisms to cope with salinity-induced stress [144,169].
Salt stress also affects olive trees by altering the photosynthetic pigment content [58,90,117,144]. A decrease in leaf chlorophyll content due to salt stress has been documented in different olive cultivars [57,58,90,91,144,154,170]. This decrease in chlorophyll content is a typical response associated with increased oxidative stress [171,172,173,174,175]. In fact, studies with different olive cultivars have shown a decrease in chlorophyll content and photosynthetic rate under salt stress correlates with increased catalytic activity of catalase and glutathione reductase in leaves [91,173,176,177].
In the ‘Chétoui’ and ‘Chemlali’ cultivars, increased carotenoid content and carotenoid/chlorophyll ratio were observed under salinity, which can be considered a protective response to prevent the photosynthetic apparatus from photooxidation [117,144]. Similar results were observed in ‘Picual’ plants pretreated with indole-3-acetic acid, salicylic acid, or quinetin and grown with 100 and 200 mM NaCl [58]. Carotenoids can act by quenching chlorophyll fluorescence directly by singlet energy transfer from chlorophyll to carotenoids or indirectly mediated by trans-thylakoid membrane-mediated and ΔpH [178,179,180]. In the ‘Arbequina’, ‘Koroneiki’, and ‘Chemlali’ cultivars, increased thermal energy dissipation and non-photochemical quenching associated with salinity were linked to an increase in the lutein/chlorophyll ratio [144].

2.3. Water Relations

The photosynthetic response, adjusted by stomatal conductance, leads to changes in water use efficiency (WUE) in plants exposed to osmotic stress [92,94,117]. The effect of salinity on WUE varies with the intensity and duration of the stress [94,153]. In saline environments, differences in WUE between cultivars have been observed [92,94,153]. Under salt stress, an increase in foliar WUE may be an indicator of salinity tolerance [94,181,182,183]. WUE increases when a decrease in stomatal conductance is greater than the decrease in photosynthesis. This may be a consequence of an increase in osmotic adjustment and hydraulic resistance and a decrease in photosynthesis due to stomatal limitation rather than a decrease in photosynthetic capacity [109,184]. In addition, the closure of stomata under salt stress reduces water loss by transpiration [94,109,114,117,155].
Leaf water potential decreased in different olive cultivars grown at different NaCl levels [93]. Olive is a drought-tolerant species and can, therefore, withstand quite low leaf water potentials without losing its turgor [183,185]. Olive can continue to transpire and photosynthesize at water potentials of −6 and −8 MPa [184,186] and can rehydrate in a short time after having lost 40% of the water in the tissues [187]. This is important for salt stress tolerance, as the first phase of salt stress is osmotic stress associated with cellular dehydration due to decreased water uptake and WUE [86,117]. Therios and Misopolinos [130] reported a decrease in water uptake in salinized olive trees, mainly caused by the decrease in osmosis in the external solution. Therefore, a reduction in relative leaf water content (RWC) by salinity has been described in different olive cultivars [91,92,118,154,155,188]. Differences in RWC have been described as a function of cultivar, NaCl level, and duration of salt stress [91,92]. Higher values of growth regulators and leaf water status under salt stress are related to a higher salt ion exclusion capacity of the shoot [91,92]. Furthermore, differences in a decrease in RWC of old and young leaves of the cultivar ‘Chondrolia Chalkidikis’ have been reported, where a decrease in RWC was about six times higher in old leaves than in young leaves [155].
More detailed ecophysiological studies are needed to understand how different olive cultivars respond to salt stress in various environments (i.e., different soil types and climates). In fact, the effectiveness of physiological adaptations requires in-depth research in a large series of environmental contexts. The analysis of structural changes at cellular and tissue levels is also critical to an overall understanding of these mechanisms. In parallel, the integration of physiological data with genomic analyses will be key to improving our scientific understanding of the olive tree’s adaptation to salt stress. This approach will enable us to identify cultivars that are naturally more tolerant, as well as guide the development of cultivation practices aimed at mitigating the negative effects of salt stress.

3. Biochemical Mechanisms in Olive for Adaptation to Salt Stress

Olive trees, renowned for their resilience in diverse environments, particularly saline stress, use not only physiological and morphological strategies but also biochemical mechanisms to thrive and persist in severe conditions.

3.1. Mineral Nutrients

Several studies have been carried out on the relationship between salinity and mineral nutrition in olive trees and have found it to be highly complex. Loupassaki et al. [189] studied the impact of salt stress on the concentrations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), and sodium (Na+) in the leaves, shoots, and roots of six Greek olive cultivars (‘Koroneiki’, ‘Mastoidis’, ‘Kalamon’, ‘Amphissis’, ‘Kothreiki’, and ‘Megaritiki’). They observed a significant increase in Na+ levels in the various tissues of all cultivars, particularly in the roots, while K+ concentrations dropped in all organs. Similarly, Palm et al. [99] discovered that salinity induced a significant accumulation of Na+ in all tissues of olive cultivars ‘Frantoio’, ‘Leccino’, ‘Lecciana’, and ‘Oliana’, with the highest concentrations in the roots, while the K+ content decreased with salt level. They also detected a correlation between leaf Na+ concentration and a reduction in photosynthetic parameters. Bader et al. [97] investigated the salinity effect on three cultivars (‘Picholine’, ‘Meski’, and ‘Ascolana’) and revealed that the chloride concentration increased in roots with salinity but showed divergent trends in stems and leaves among cultivars. The potassium concentration decreased in all plant parts except for the cultivar ‘Picholine’, for which a notable increase in leaves was recorded, leading to significant decreases in the K+/Na+ and Ca2+/Na+ ratios under salinity treatment. In a recent study carried out on the ‘Leccino’ cultivar by Sodini et al. [114], salt treatment resulted in an accumulation of Na+ in the stems, while its concentration remained constant in the leaves. The same treatment induced a variation in Ca2+ levels in roots, while K+ and Mg2+ remained unchanged. They also noted a significant linear relationship between Na+ and Ca2+ in roots, indicating a potential interaction. Different patterns were also noted; for instance, the ‘Leccino’ cultivar accumulated Na+ in roots under saline conditions [111,113]. Lower concentrations of Ca2+, K+, and Mg2+ induced by salt stress have been observed by many authors [188,189,190].
Potassium deficiency in salinized plants is associated with an increase in Na+ accumulation, indicating the presence of ion competition effects [191]. The reduction in K+ concentration in olive roots, resulting in a low K+/Na+ ratio, may contribute to achieving ionic balance after the high uptake of sodium ions [192]. Polyphenols play a key role in reducing osmotic stress by improving the K+/Na+ ratio and water absorption, thus reducing oxidative stress in olive leaves under saline conditions [193,194,195]. Other studies have reported evidence of the influence of salinity–nitrogen interactions on plant growth and metabolism, proposing that N fertilization could mitigate the harmful effects of salinity; however, the precise mechanisms of this interaction, including nitrate reductase (NR) activity, require further investigation [157,196].
Cultivated plants, mainly adapted to low salinity, have difficulties efficiently absorbing and using nutrients in saline conditions because of the high concentrations of Na+ and Cl [197]. In fact, such conditions cause nutrient imbalances in plants as a result of various mechanisms, notably reduced availability, competitive absorption, and physiological inactivation of key nutrients such as potassium [198]. Olive cultivars display reduced growth and leaf damage when foliar Na+ levels exceed 0.4% of dry matter [134,149]. Effective mechanisms to mitigate salinity impacts in olives consist mainly of limiting the uptake and transport of sodium and chloride ions from the roots to the aerial parts, especially evident in salt-tolerant cultivars [17,89]. The ability to exclude sodium at low to moderate salinity levels helps to regulate ion concentration in xylem sap, thus preventing the toxic accumulation of ions in aerial parts; however, high salinity can lead to Na+ transport and accumulation in aerial parts, causing toxic symptoms [17,134]. Salt tolerance in olive cultivars involves efficient mechanisms for excluding and retaining Na+ and Cl ions in the roots, where calcium plays a crucial role in preserving the integrity of the plasma membrane; on the other hand, reduced Ca2+ uptake under salt stress is linked to reduced transpiration rates rather than direct competition with Na+ [89,135]. Tabatabaei [157] stated that nutrient availability and absorption in saline environments are dependent, in turn, on soil composition, solute concentration, pH, accompanying elements, and environmental factors such as aeration, temperature, and stress.

3.2. Osmotic Adjustment

3.2.1. Proline Accumulation

Osmotic adjustment is an additional adaptive mechanism for olive trees in response to severe conditions. It involves organic compounds such as amino acids or soluble carbohydrates [199,200,201]. The process combines both active synthesis and accumulation of osmolytes in cells [202]. Proline, an essential amino acid, is involved in many different physiological processes in plants, particularly olive trees, and significantly influences their ability to tolerate salt exposure. Many studies have investigated the response of olive trees to saline conditions, revealing mainly the accumulation of proline as a result of its role in osmoregulation, although its exact function is not yet fully understood [92,119,203].
Recently, Trabelsi et al. [203] reported that full irrigation of a 26-year-old olive orchard (‘Chemlali’) with saline water (EC = 7.5 dS/m) increased the proline content in various organs compared with another fully irrigated with tap water (EC = 2.46 dS/m).
This corroborates numerous previous findings; Ben Rouina et al. [119] observed significant proline accumulation under salt stress, with higher levels in leaves compared with roots, peaking during the summer season coinciding with low values of relative water content and water potential. The proline concentrations in olive leaves (‘Sigoise’) were found to be positively correlated with soil salinity, suggesting a potential involvement of proline in the osmotic regulation of cytoplasmic pH or N storage for post-stress periods [204]. Ayaz et al. [92] published a significant increase in proline levels in the leaves of three Turkish olive cultivars (‘Gemlik’, ‘Kilis’, and ‘Ayvalık’) subjected to different salt stress treatments. The proline content in olive leaves (‘Gemlik’) exhibited a significant increase with worsening salt stress severity, followed by a decline, which indicated that olive trees use proline synthesis as a tool for mitigating salinity-induced osmotic stress [205]. All of this reinforces the idea that proline accumulation correlates with the efficiency of salinity tolerance mechanisms in olive trees, suggesting that the time and magnitude of synthesis are probably linked to the level of salinity tolerance and biochemical strategies of cultivars [206].
On the contrary, in another investigation conducted by Regni et al. [91] on the salinity tolerance of the Croatian wild olive genotype and two well-known cultivars ‘Leccino’ and ‘Koroneiki’, the proline levels appeared unchanged or even decreased compared with the control. These authors supposed, in this case, that osmotic adjustment in olive leaves under hyperosmotic conditions could be achieved by the accumulation of K+ and other organic solutes rather than by the accumulation of proline. In a similar vein, Ben Abdallah et al. [117] recorded an 18% reduction in proline content in the leaves of salt-stressed plants (‘Chétoui’) irrigated every other day with 200 mM NaCl in 100% Hoagland’s solution, as compared with control conditions. The proline concentration was measured as a potential marker of cellular hydro–saline imbalance in leaves and showed a decrease during salt stress applied to ‘Royal’ and ‘Arbequina’ olive cultivars [207].
Despite its proven involvement in stress response, the precise function of proline is still widely debated but little clarified [116,160,208,209]. Various possible reasons have been suggested to explain the accumulation of proline in stressed plants. Ramanjulu and Sudhakar [210] attribute this accumulation to plant adaptation to salinity, while other studies propose that proline accumulation may result from salt stress-induced damage [211] or serve as an indicator of salt sensitivity [212], calling into question its role as a marker of plant salt tolerance.
Proline could protect the photosynthetic activity of salt-stressed olive trees by regulating hydration and osmotic adjustment, thus promoting growth even under stressful conditions [119]. Salt-stressed olive trees displayed an increasing proline concentration in their cytoplasm in order to enhance water absorption by tissues during active growth and to maintain ionic balance in vacuoles via osmotic adjustment effects [211]. Proline in the olive tree acts as a protective osmolyte in the face of environmental stresses, particularly saline conditions, both by reducing toxicity and by promoting osmotic regulation [213,214,215].
Proline can serve as a source of nitrogen in cells under stress conditions, where its accumulation could be utilized as a form of stored N, considering that proline contributed 12.16% of leaf nitrogen [216,217]. In situations of nitrogen limitation, proline functions as an alternative metabolic substrate under conditions of stress, therefore helping the maintenance of cellular energy and the balance between NADP+ and NADPH. This multifaceted role may be extended to its contribution to many pathways, including the tricarboxylic acid cycle and glutathione biosynthesis, which further emphasizes its dynamic nature as an organic reserve capable of supporting plant growth and meeting stress [218,219]. Ben Ahmed et al. [160,220] documented that proline supply improved photosynthetic activity and antioxidant defense enzyme activities in stressed plants, and its application, both in the presence and absence of salinity, significantly influenced salt ion distribution in the leaves and roots of ‘Chemlali’ olive trees.

3.2.2. Sugar Accumulation

The accumulation of osmolytes, notably soluble sugars, represents a key survival mechanism for plants under salt stress, allowing them to prevent dehydration and protect cells from oxidative damage [221,222]. This adaptation varies across species and depends on the dose and duration of stress exposure [85].
Trabelsi et al. [203] recorded a significant increase in soluble sugars in olive leaf and root tissues during salt and water stress, mainly synthesized in the leaves. Furthermore, these same authors, in an earlier study, detailed a potential osmo-protective role and stress tolerance for these accumulated soluble sugars, as it could also be linked to reduced vegetative growth shown during these stress periods [223]. Salt stress significantly induced a 51% increase in total soluble sugars in the leaves of young olive seedlings (‘Chetoui’) transplanted into 10 L pots [117]. Meanwhile, Tester and Davemport [115] stated that salt accumulation in the vacuole stimulates the synthesis of organic solutes, thus balancing the osmotic potential of the cytoplasm with that of the vacuole. The increase in soluble sugars in olive leaves and roots, associated with a reduction in starch, has been observed concurrently with the counteraction of their biosynthetic enzymes, offering a crucial mechanism for plant tolerance to various abiotic stresses, including salinity [224,225].
Olive leaves contain a wide variety of carbohydrates, including glucose, mannitol, fructose, arabinose, myo-inositol, xylitol, xylose, galactinol, galactose, sucrose, raffinose, stachyose, and many others. Among them, glucose and mannitol are the most abundant [226,227]. Moula et al. [73] found, in their investigation of the quantification of soluble sugars in young olive plants (‘Chemlali’ and ‘Koroneiki’) subjected to salt stress, a significant increase in the concentration of mannitol, which was the most abundant sugar, while glucose and fructose showed no variation under this stress. This confirms the proposal by Tattini et al. [228] that mannitol actively contributes to the osmotic adaptation process in olive trees. According to the same authors, the rise in mannitol concentration is not simply a result of salinity but rather functions as a responsive mechanism, while glucose is the main sugar involved in metabolic functions and storage in olive leaves. Gucci and Tottini [88] noticed an accumulation of soluble carbohydrates, especially mannitol, in salt-stressed ‘Frantoio’ and ‘Leccino’ olive cultivars, indicating their contribution to osmotic adjustment.
Ayaz et al. [92] assessed mannitol levels and mannitol dehydrogenase (MDH) activity in three olive cultivars (‘Gemlik’, ‘Ayvalık’, and ‘Kilis’) under varying degrees of salt stress to examine their contribution to osmotic protection. Their results showed a significant increase in mannitol content, together with changes in mannitol dehydrogenase activities in all cultivars as salt stress was raised, clearly revealing a correlation between mannitol levels and enzymatic activities. Similarly, Conde et al. [229] reported that olive trees (‘Galega Vulgar’) subjected to salt and drought stress coordinated mannitol levels and mannitol dehydrogenase activity in source tissues. Salinity greatly elevates mannitol and glucose concentrations in olive leaves, while other soluble carbohydrates remain unaffected [228]. Mannitol accumulation occurs earlier than glucose [93]. 14C-labeling pulsechase experiments supported a preferential allocation of carbon to mannitol synthesis in salt-stressed olive leaves, indicating a central role for mannitol in improving salt tolerance [88].

3.3. Cell Wall Modification

Lignin is a biopolymer that has been identified in the xylem and schlerenchyma cell walls of vascular plants, particularly olive [230]. Its main functions are to provide rigidity to cell walls and ensure the impermeability of the tracheary elements, which facilitate the transport of water and solutes via the vascular system [231]. Many authors have shown evidence of lignin accumulation during saline stress in several species [232,233,234]. Lignification of vascular constituents reduces water permeability in the apoplasm [235]. Sánchez-Aguayo et al. [234] highlighted a decisive role of lignin accumulation in the process of plant adaptation to salt stress.
Concerning olive trees, Ben Abdallah et al. [117] observed a notable increment in leaf lignin content of the ‘Chétoui’ cultivar under water and salt stress conditions, compared with the control. Sofo et al. [221] asserted that the increase in lignification during stress conditions corresponds to a tolerance strategy adopted by olive plants to strengthen cell walls mechanically. They assume that this reinforcement can reduce water loss and cell dehydration by displacing the space occupied by mesophyll water, which, unlike lignified tissue, exchanges readily with the transpiration stream.
In salt stress conditions, olive leaves exhibit overexpression of two protein isoforms (Fra e 12.10) in olive leaves, which show strong sequence similarity to the main allergens of Fraxinus excelsior (European ash) [236]. Ben Abdallah et al. [117] suppose that this overexpression is related to lignin/lignan metabolism and suggest that lignification may be a tolerance strategy adopted in olive trees to strengthen cell walls and reduce water loss.

3.4. Antioxidant Defense Activity

Salt stress has a significant impact on plants by inducing oxidative stress through the excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can damage vital cellular constituents. The olive tree has various mechanisms to prevent these damaging effects, thanks to its antioxidant defense system (Figure 5).
This system consists of enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), and guaiacol peroxidase (GPX) [221], while the non-enzymatic system includes substances with antioxidant properties such as ascorbate, tocopherol, carotenoids and various phenolic compounds [230].
Ayaz et al. [92] reported that salt stress caused increased levels of reactive oxygen species, which require an active antioxidant defense system for tolerance, thus suggesting that antioxidant enzyme activity could serve as a marker of salinity tolerance in olive cultivars. They analyzed the activities of SOD, GPX, glutathione reductase (GR), peroxidase (POX), and CAT in response to higher salinity levels and observed a notable increase in three olive cultivars ‘Gemlik’, ‘Ayvalık’, and ‘Kilis’. Regni et al. [91] documented a systemic increase in GSH and CAT activities in the leaves of salt-treated olive plants (‘Fadak 86’, ‘Royal de Cazorla’, ‘Koroneiki’, and ‘Arbequina’). Similarly, Sofo et al. [221] found higher activities of antioxidant enzymes, namely APX and CAT, as well as SOD and peroxidase (POX), lipoxygenase (LOX) activity, and malonaldehyde (MDA) concentrations, indicating membrane lipid oxidation, which is linked to photosynthetic apparatus damage. The same authors also detected a lower polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity to protect against phenol oxidation. These enzymes are widely documented to be activated in response to abiotic oxidative stress by plants [152,208,237,238,239]. They play a central role in protecting chloroplasts from oxidative damage [163]. Plants have been shown tolerance to saline conditions and succeed in thriving even under these severe environments thanks to a significant increase in the production of antioxidant enzymes [206,240,241].
Salt-tolerant species induce the production of antioxidant enzymes, thus improving their ability to eliminate reactive oxygen species. In contrast, salt-sensitive species exhibit a reduction in antioxidant activity [242]. This decline in enzymatic activity caused an accumulation of hydrogen peroxide and malondialdehyde. Ertani et al. [243] explained the accumulation of hydrogen peroxide as the result of reduced APX when exposed to salt stress. Del Buono et al. [154] observed that salt exposure to olive plants (‘Arbequina’) caused significant reductions in the activities of antioxidant enzymes, especially ascorbate peroxidase (APX) to a large extent, and others such as SOD, GPX, and CAT. In another similar study, Bano et al. [244] found that salinity strongly reduced SOD, CAT, and peroxidase activities, as well as this effect was cultivar-dependent.
The total antioxidant capacity of olive leaves (‘Changlot Real’, ‘Picual’, and ‘Arbequina’) was significantly reduced under salinity stress [245]. The antioxidant activity, in particular that of SOD, increased in response to salt stress, thus reducing oxidative stress in olive trees, notably via non-enzymatic antioxidants such as polyphenols [246]. Iwaniuk et al. [247] reported the relevance of SOD, in conjunction with other antioxidants (CAT and NADH-dependent peroxidase [POD]), in the plant defense system against biotic stress as well as by managing ROS levels and reducing oxidative damage. Total phenols and phenolic compounds are involved in the antioxidant mechanisms developed by the olive tree in response to oxidative stress induced by salt stress [206,220].
In some olive cultivars (‘Gemlik’, ‘Nizip Yaglık’, and ‘Kilis Yaglık’), the salt treatment showed no significant impact on polyphenol and protein content, but it reduced total flavonoid content, indicating a consistent response to salt-induced stress [248]. Phenolic compounds play a crucial role in combating abiotic and biotic stress drivers, as both their biosynthesis and accumulation are activated by these factors, although some studies indicate a decrease in their content as stressors increase [249,250]. Flavonoids have been reported to improve the ability of trees to tolerate stress through their influence on physiological performance, leading to reduced lipid peroxidation [251]. Demiral et al. [205] noted a change in the leaf antioxidant activity of the ‘Gemlik’ olive cultivar during salt stress, linked to proline and total phenol levels. Proline enhances photosynthetic activity and antioxidant defense enzymes more effectively, as well as acting on the distribution of salt ions in olive trees [220].

3.5. Lipid Peroxidation

Salt stress can also alter the structural properties and integrity of membranes, leading to their deterioration. Many researchers have used lipid peroxidation analysis to assess the damage inflicted on olive trees by salt stress.
Ben Abdallah et al. [117] conducted a study on the effect of salt stress on oxidative damage in Chétoui variety leaves and revealed a 50% rise in lipid peroxidation, as measured using (malondialdehyde) MDA content, compared with the control. They speculated that salt-stressed olive trees might accumulate both reactive oxygen species and electrolytes, leading to heightened oxidative damage. Ayaz et al. [92] have determined MDA levels in the leaves of olive cultivars ‘Gemlik’, ‘Kilis’, and ‘Ayvalık’, and also revealed some spectacular increases in MDA content, with differences observed among varieties. Several other research reports have cited similar trends of significant rises in MDA under salt stress [152,154,204].
Recently, Lima-Cabello et al. [245] have analyzed lipid peroxidation as an indicator of salinity resistance by measuring the combined levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE) [MDA + HNE] in commercial olive trees subjected to saline treatments. The results showed higher levels of MDA and HNE in the ‘Arbequina’, ‘Cobrançosa’, ‘Pico-Limón’, and ‘Cornezuelo’ cultivars compared with controls, while no significant difference was observed for the ‘Changlot Real’ and ‘Picual’ cultivars, renowned for their resistance to salinity. Similarly, Azariadis et al. [252] found that MDA levels increased significantly in salt-sensitive varieties (‘Koroneiki’ and ‘Arvanitoli’) but not in certain tolerant varieties (‘Lefkolia’ and ‘Gaidourelia’) when all were exposed to saline conditions. Meanwhile, in another study, MDA levels in two olive cultivars (‘Canino’ and ‘Sirole’) under different salt concentrations remained unchanged [253]. Non-significant MDA variations were found in the roots of olive cultivar ‘Leccino’ plants under salt stress [114].

3.6. Adaptations at the Protein Level

Different defense mechanisms are triggered when plants are subjected to salt stress, mobilizing a complex set of proteins to mitigate the adverse effects of salinity on growth and development. For olive trees, the crucial role of proteins and their involvement in salt stress tolerance are the subject of intense investigations.
Bashir et al. [253] reported a close relationship between salt stress and protein concentration in ‘Canino’ and ‘Sirole’ olive cultivars. Demir and Cetinkaya [248] stated a slight change in protein content when olive cultivars ‘Gemlik’, ‘Kilis Yaglık’, and ‘Nizip Yaglık’ were exposed to high salinity levels. Valderrama et al. [254] conducted a research study on olive response to salt stress and found a 30–50% increase in protein content. Similarly, Parida et al. [255] affirmed that salinity rise can induce changes in free amino acid levels and reduce total protein content, thereby boosting the activity of acid and alkaline proteases, thus offering resistance to stress conditions. The accumulation of these proteins constitutes a source of nitrogen for osmotic adjustment [256]. Salt stress-induced proteins can be classified into two main groups: salt-stress proteins, which accumulate specifically in response to salt stress, and stress-related proteins, which accumulate in response to various abiotic stresses [257].
Arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs) are key glycoproteins in plant cell walls, with a significant role in growth, development, and responses to environmental stresses [258]. A related claim was reported by Ouyang et al. [259], who consider wall-associated kinases and AGPs to be potential candidates for detecting stress-induced changes in plant physiology. The same authors noted that transcriptional analyses have indicated a repression of cell wall-related gene expression, including AGPs and xyloglucan, as a result of salt stress. Similarly, Azariadis et al. [252] reported that immunodetection revealed a weak AGP signal in the ‘Koroneiki’ cultivar, which was associated with irregular cells and intercellular spaces, resulting in the formation of aerenchyma after 45 days of salt treatment. Hydroxyproline-rich cell wall glycoproteins (HRGP), such as arabinogalactans proteins (AGP), are involved in salinity stress [260,261].
Ben Abdallah et al. [117] achieved reproducible 2-DE proteomic maps of ‘Chetoui’ olive leaves for the first time in an original investigation. The analysis of these maps identified 26 differentially expressed protein spots, with the majority corresponding to proteins involved in photosynthesis. Other identified proteins were associated with nitrogen metabolism, protein storage, energy, and other functional categories. The profiles of the identified proteins in control and salt samples are provided, revealing significant differences in expression patterns. Under salt stress conditions, several photosynthesis-related proteins showed reduced expression levels compared with the control. These included ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) large subunit isoforms, oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 1 (OEE1) isoforms, oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2 (OEE2) isoforms, ferredoxin-NADP reductase (FNR), BSP, glutamine synthetase cytosolic isozymes (GSc), salicylic acid-binding protein (SABP), and carbonic anhydrase isozyme (CA), while others such as ATP synthase subunit β, GS nodule isoenzyme (GSn), and Fra e 12.10 allergen isoforms were over-expressed. The down-regulation of RuBisCO isoforms and some other proteins in saline stress conditions indicates a limitation of photosynthetic efficiency due to factors linked to low intercellular CO2 and reduced electron transport activity [262,263]. Moreover, the down-regulation of enzymes involved in CO2 maintenance and salicylic acid signaling, such as CA and SABP, respectively, suggests possible mechanisms for reduced stress tolerance [264,265,266,267]. In addition, the overexpression of specific proteins, such as Fra e 12.10, may reflect an adaptive response, including lignification, to mitigate stress effects [268,269,270]. Alterations in cytoplasmic proteins affect cell viscosity under saline conditions [271].
Clarifying the complex biochemical mechanisms governing the olive tree’s adaptation to salt stress continues to be a major frontier in plant biology and agronomy. Integrative and multidisciplinary research is required to fill these knowledge gaps in order to ensure the future of this emblematic Mediterranean crop in the face of environmental challenges. Gene regulation, signaling pathways, and epigenetic modifications are still relatively unclear aspects that can be addressed through extensive explorations based on a combination of omics technologies, functional genomics, advanced imaging, and field studies.

4. Molecular Mechanisms in Olive for Adaptation to Salt Stress

Plant adaptation or tolerance to salt stress involves a complex process of physiological and biochemical traits and metabolic pathways controlled by a network of genes [272,273,274]. This process begins with detecting stress signals, followed by signal transduction that activates stress-responsive genes, ultimately leading to metabolic adjustments able to counter salinity-induced osmotic stress and other various stressors [275,276].
From the recent literature on olive tree responses to salinity, we can note a serious gap concerning the molecular network that governs its adaptation to such severe conditions compared with the physiological, biochemical, and metabolic mechanisms that have been widely investigated. The lack of molecular research into olive resistance to salt stress has recently been filled by some studies seeking both to identify the genes induced by stress and to analyze their functions.
Bazakos et al. [131] conducted a comparative transcriptomic analysis of two olive cultivars under salt stress conditions, which is widely acknowledged as a seminal study in understanding the molecular response of olive trees to salt stress. They found that in the cultivar ‘Kalamon’, 159 transcripts consistently showed up-regulation during stress, with 50 others exhibiting delayed up-regulation, but all 209 were down-regulated post-stress. In contrast, the cultivar ‘Chondrolia Chalkidikis’ displayed limited transcriptional activation (20 transcripts), leading the authors to suggest that this reduced transcriptional response might be partly responsible for the sensitivity of the cultivar ‘Chondrolia Chalkidikis’ compared with the cultivar ‘Kalamon’ in terms of gene expression. Seven transcripts in the cultivar ‘Kalamon’ were recognized by these authors as salt-specific, namely putative small glutamine-rich tetratricopeptide repeat-containing protein, 40S ribosomal protein, NAD+ ADP-ribosyltransferase, annexin A4, xyloglucan endotransglycosylase, UDP-galactose epimerase, and stress-induced protein. JEREF and bZIP transcription factors have been identified as key regulators of the response of olive trees to salt stress, with differences in expression between the two cultivars indicating their importance in salt tolerance. Zhang et al. [277] reported the involvement of JERF in the response to abiotic stress, including salinity, by regulating the expression of stress-responsive and ABA biosynthesis-related genes. Similarly, Yoshida et al. [278] showed that AREB1, a group A bZIP, is crucial in ABA signaling in response to drought stress.
In further research, Bazakos et al. [279] used next-generation sequencing to explore the molecular basis of the salt stress response in the olive cultivar ‘Kalamon’, focusing on leaves and roots. Transcriptomic analysis disclosed 24 genes differentially expressed in roots (9 down-regulated and 15 up-regulated) and 70 in leaves (14 down- and 56 up-regulated), giving tissue-specific responses to salt stress. The differentially expressed transcripts are consistent with findings in chickpeas and maize, suggesting common stress response pathways to plant species [280,281]. In addition, the authors stated that BlastX analysis identified fourteen transcripts associated with cell wall hydrolases (eight down-regulated in roots and only one in leaves), which could have an impact on wall elasticity under salt stress. A reduction in hydrolase activity may decrease wall elasticity, making plants more rigid and tolerant to salt stress [280]. In addition, Bazakos et al. [279] noted that 19 clusters encode cytochrome P450s, showing significant differential expression in leaves and roots. This gene family is involved in lignin biosynthesis and is known for its role in the response to abiotic stress [282].
Rossi et al. [113] assessed the expression levels of genes implicated in the phenylpropanoid metabolic pathway, compounds known to be specialized in responses to environmental stimuli, in ‘Leccino’ (salt-sensitive) and ‘Frantoio’ (salt-tolerant) cultivar olive plants grown in a phytotron chamber and treated with NaCl. In this study, they highlighted the impact of salt stress on gene expression along phenolic pathways in olive trees, revealing a variable response depending on the organ, genotype, and specific enzyme involved. Phenylalanine-Ammonia-Lyase (PAL), the primary enzyme converting phenylalanine into cinnamic acid, is up-regulated in response to salinity, varying by organ and genotype. The expression of Cinnamate-4-Hydroxylase (C4H), involved in the conversion of cinnamic acid to p-coumaric acid, remained stable in all treatments at most organs, except for significant up-regulation in ‘Leccino’ roots under moderate salt stress. The enzyme 4-coumarate: CoA ligase (4CL), responsible for 4-coumarate activation, showed higher expression in ‘Leccino’ aerial organs, with up-regulation in leaves. Chalcone Synthase (CHS) and Chalcone Isomerase (CHI), key enzymes in flavonoid biosynthesis, exhibited low expression levels but were up-regulated in new leaves of both cultivars under NaCl stress. The same authors observed that expression of the Na+/H+ Exchanger (NHX) gene, a recognized molecular marker of salt stress in other plant species [283], was significantly increased in all ‘Leccino’ organs in response to salt treatment, while it remained insignificant in ‘Frantoio’, indicating a differential perception of salt stress between the cultivars.
Said [274] focused his investigation more specifically on the change in expression of the AtTPS1 gene, which codes for trehalose-6-phosphate synthase (TPS), in salt-stressed plants. This study was conducted on two olive cultivars, ‘Pecaul’ (salt-tolerant) and ‘Aggizi Shame’ (moderately salt-tolerant), which were treated with validamycin A and grown under saline conditions. The results revealed successful amplification of AtTPS1 in both cultivars, with an additional fragment at 210 bp observed, particularly in the salt-tolerant cultivar (‘Pecual’). Trehalose synthesis relies on the enzymes trehalose-6-phosphate synthase (TPS) and trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase (TPP). The increase in cytoplasmic trehalose induced by validamycin A inhibits TPP activity, increasing trehalose-6-phosphate (T6P) levels [284]. Accordingly, the results of Said [274] suggest the involvement of olive TPS in salt stress response with validamycin A in both cultivars. AtTPS1 and AtTPP genes have previously been discovered in Arabidopsis thaliana, emphasizing their relevance to plant stress responses [285,286,287]. Penna [288] asserted the potential strategy of modulating trehalose levels, a key player in the stress response, either through inhibition of trehalase or enhancement of its biosynthesis.
Mousavi et al. [289] analyzed the differential regulation of candidate genes putatively for the salt stress response across four olive cultivars ‘(Koroneiki’, ‘Picual’, ‘Royal de Cazorla’, and ‘Fadak86’). They revealed that only OeNHX7, OeP5CS, OeRD19A, and OePetD exhibited up-regulation in tolerant cultivars (‘Royal’ and ‘Fadak86’), indicating their key role in the activation of a salt tolerance mechanism. Up-regulation of NHX, as observed with OeNHX7, was related to an enhanced accumulation of Na+ in the vacuole, hence contributing to mitigating salt stress [148,283]. P5CS gene expression has been shown to improve salt tolerance through proline accumulation, which regulates Na+ accumulation in leaves [290,291,292]. The cysteine protease genes RD21A and RD19A are involved in the programmed cell death pathway during stress [293]. The up-regulation of OeRD19A supports its implication in improving salt tolerance in olive trees [289]. The chloroplast gene PetD (CytB6), a component of the plastoquinone-plastocyanin reductase, plays a critical role in electron transport and ATP production, thus offering a defense against salinity-induced oxidative damage [289,294,295].
Recently, Sodini et al. [114] delved into the molecular mechanisms underlying the response of ‘Leccino’ olive tree (salt-sensitive) roots to NaCl stress, focusing on the expression of genes associated with proton pumps and Na+/H+ exchangers. They specifically examined genes such as PATPase, V-type ATPase sub E, SOS1, and NHX, designing primers based on the Olea europaea genome and genes from other tree species. They revealed that salt treatment resulted in a decrease in the expression of P-ATPase 1 and SOS1 after 24 h, followed by NHX and V-ATPase sub E after 48 h, and ultimately P-ATPase 8 within 7 days. Membrane H+-ATPase genes are typically under-expressed in response to salinity [296]. P-type H+-ATPase has housekeeping functions, aiding turgor pressure and cell wall extension [297]. SOS1 gene in roots functions in Na+ exclusion and loading into the xylem, potentially leading to sodium accumulation in leaves [115,150,298]. V-ATPase subunits and NHX genes are involved in the mechanisms of root Na+ storage, and their down-regulation aligns with the observed lack of sodium accumulation in the roots [299].
The genetic and molecular pathways that ensure salt tolerance in olive trees are not well understood. Future research should focus on detecting and deciphering specific genes and their regulatory networks involved in the response to salt stress. More advanced techniques could prove invaluable in uncovering these pathways. In addition, investigations into DNA methylation, changes in histones, and non-coding RNAs could provide new insights into the inherited properties and complexity of salt stress responses in olive trees.

5. Factors Affecting Salinity Tolerance

The olive tree is widely recognized for its resilience and ability to tolerate severe environments [117,300,301], including those with high levels of salinity, thanks to a series of adaptive mechanisms [119,121,244,246]. Nevertheless, the extent of its tolerance to saline stress is also conditioned by many other factors. Studies have revealed significant variation in the response of olive trees to stress depending on the cultivar, as some cultivars such as ‘Leccino’, ‘Arvanitoli’, and ‘Arbequina’ displayed salt sensitivity, while others such as ‘Frantoio’, ‘Lefkolia’, ‘Gaidourelia’, ‘Manzanillo’, and ‘Hojiblanca’ showed more resilience [113,252]. The specific genetic characteristics of each cultivar define its salt tolerance, thereby affecting ion absorption/exclusion regulation, osmolyte accumulation, resistance to oxidative stress, and the activation of metabolic pathways [131,274,288]. Furthermore, prior investigations have demonstrated that both young olive trees and organs are more susceptible to salt stress compared with their older counterparts [157,302,303]. The effects of salt stress on olive trees are not limited to cultivar tolerance. The physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses of the olive tree are in part dependent on the concentration and nature of salts and nutrients available in the soil and irrigation water. In fact, high salt concentrations exacerbate the damaging actions of salt stress on olive trees [99,253].
Several other environmental factors are critical in regulating the response of olive trees to saline conditions. Soil composition and pH, as well as solute and nutrient content, all influence ion exchange [157]. In addition, water availability has proven to be essential for the olive tree in managing salt in the soil; unbalanced conditions, particularly a water shortage, may exacerbate water stress and increase salt concentration [117], which further emphasizes the importance of finding the right balance to support the resistance of the olive tree to salt stress. High temperatures can also aggravate the effects of salt stress by accelerating transpiration [304]. Hence, we also hypothesize that cultivation and management practices, such as irrigation methods and fertilization, may influence the salinity tolerance of the olive tree.

6. Conclusions

Olive cultivation has experienced rapid expansion worldwide, although its primary production remains concentrated in the regions of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. However, these regions are facing major challenges associated with demographic pressure and climate change, significantly impacting water availability and quality. This situation is giving rise to the growing risk of soil and water salinization, particularly threatening agricultural production, including that of olives and olive oil.
The literature on the response of the olive tree (Olea europaea) to saline conditions has revealed multiple tolerance mechanisms to cope with these stressful environments. The olive tree may undergo structural changes in the root to favor ion exclusion from the shoot. It can remove senescent leaves where there is an accumulation of toxic ions and adjust its morphology to limit water loss caused by salt stress, in particular by reducing growth, especially of the aerial part, and modifying leaf anatomy. In addition, stomatal conductance is increased by salinity, leading to a decrease in transpiration and photosynthesis and an increase in water use efficiency. In fact, the decrease in photosynthesis is mainly due to stomatal closure since most studies revealed that PSII is not very susceptible to saline ions. Moreover, to resist and adapt to salinity, the olive tree relies on biochemical mechanisms that include the accumulation of osmolytes, such as sugars and amino acids, as well as the regulation of ionic flux to maintain osmotic and ionic balance. Additionally, research has unveiled the synthesis of specific metabolites and enzymes crucial for protecting plant cells against oxidative damage induced by salt stress. In contrast, molecular exploration of the response of olive trees to salt stress has lagged behind the other aspects; recently, considerable attention has been devoted to understanding the expression and functions of involved genes, especially ion transporters and signaling proteins that regulate olive responses to saline conditions.
Profiling genes contributing to physiological and biochemical processes related to salt tolerance in olive trees could enable the identification of specific markers. Understanding all these mechanisms is essential for the development of selection and breeding strategies to improve the ability of olive trees to grow in saline environments, thus ensuring their sustainability.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13152094/s1, Figure S1: Area harvested (Mha), production (t), destination of olives (Mha), and yield (t/ha) of olive grove cultivation in 2021. Figure S2: Area (Mha) of rainfed, and irrigated olive grove cultivation, and area (%) of low-density, intensive and super-intensive olive grove cultivation in 2021. Figure S3: Average table olive (× 103 t) and olive oil production (× 103 t) in the main producing countries from 2013 to 2016.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.E.Y. and M.d.P.C.; resources, M.d.P.C. and M.E.Y.; data curation, M.E.Y. and M.d.P.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.d.P.C. and M.E.Y.; writing—review and editing, M.E.Y. and M.d.P.C.; visualization, M.d.P.C. and M.E.Y.; supervision M.E.Y. and M.d.P.C.; project administration, M.E.Y.; funding acquisition, M.d.P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the R&D project of Viveros Jarico S.L., funded by the IDEA agency of the Junta de Andalucía. Grant number 805 (University of Jaén) Improvement of salinity tolerance in olive by pretreatment with growth regulators.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bernard, G.; Khadari, B.; Naavascues, M.; Fernandez-Mazuecos, M.; El Bakkali, A.; Arrigo, N.; Baali-Cherif, D.; Caraffa, B.B.; Santoni, S.; Vargas, P.; et al. The complex history of the olive tree: From Late Quaternary diversification of Mediterranean lineages to primary domestication in the northern Levant. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20122833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zohary, D.; Hopf, M.; Weiss, E. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Domesticated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin, 4th ed.; Oxford University Pres: Oxford, UK, 2012; p. 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vossen, P. Olive oil: History, production, and characteristics of the world’s classic oils. Hortscience 2007, 42, 1093–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schäfer-Schuchardt, H. Expansión cultural y artística. In VVAA, Enciclopedia Mundial del Olivo; Plaza and Jané: Barcelona, Spain, 1996; pp. 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  5. Besnard, G.; Terral, J.F.; Cornille, A. On the origins and domestication of the olive: A review and perspectives. Ana. Bot. 2018, 121, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. IOC. International Olive Council. 2018. Available online: https://www.internationaloliveoil.org (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  7. Vilar, J.; Pereira, J.E. La Olivicultura Internacional. Difusión Histórica, Análisis Estratégico y Visión Descriptiva, 4th ed.; Fundación Caja Rural: Jaén, Spain, 2021; p. 161. [Google Scholar]
  8. IOC. International Olive Council. 2003. Available online: https://www.internationaloliveoil.org (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  9. IOC. International Olive Council. 2022. Available online: https://www.internationaloliveoil.org (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  10. Issaoui, M.; Flamini, G.; Brahmi, F.; Dabbou, S.; Ben Hassine, K.; Taamali, A.; Chehab, H.; Ellouz, M.; Zarrouk, M.; Hammami, M. Effect of the growing area conditions on differentiation between Chemlali and Chétoui olive oils. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tous, J.; Romero, A.; Hermoso, J.F. New trends in olive orchard design for continuous mechanical harvesting. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 24, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  12. Loumou, A.; Giourga, C. Olive groves: The life and identity of the Mediterranean. Agric. Hum. Values 2003, 20, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shi, F.; Zhao, C.; Sun, D.; Peng, D.; Han, M. Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater in central Asia area: A case study of the Tailan River Basin. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2012, 26, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, F.; Zhou, S.; Biswas, A.; Yang, S.; Ding, J. Multi-algorithm comparison for predicting soil salinity. Geoderma 2020, 365, 114211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pessoa, H.R.; Zago, L.; Chaves, C.; Ferraz da Costa, D.C. Modulation of biomarkers associated with risk of cancer in humans by olive oil intake: A systematic review. J. Funct. Food. 2022, 98, 105275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fazlollahi, A.; Motlagh Asghari, K.; Aslan, C.; Noori, M.; Nejadghaderi, S.A.; Araj-Khodaei, M.; Sullman, M.J.M.; Karamzad, N.; Kolahi, A.A.; Safiri, S. The effects of olive oil consumption on cognitive performance: A systematic review. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1218538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chrysant, S.G.; Chrysant, G.S. Olive Oil Consumption and Cardiovascular Protection: Mechanism of Action. Cardiol. Rev. 2024, 32, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Therios, I.N. Olives; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2009; p. 409. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Bolan, N.S. Soil salinity under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ludwig, M.; Wilmes, P.; Schrader, S. Measuring soil sustainability via soil resilience. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 1484–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yuvaraj, M.; Bose, K.S.C.; Elavarasi, P.; Tawfik, E. Soil salinity and its management. In Soil Moisture Importance; Meena, R.S., Datta, R., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2021; pp. 109–119. [Google Scholar]
  22. Maas, E.V. Salt tolerance of plants. Appl. Agric. Res. 1986, 1, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wicke, B.; Smeets, E.; Dornburg, V.; Vashev, B.; Gaiser, T.; Turkenburg, W.; Faaij, A. The global technical and economic potential of bioenergy from salt-affected soils. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 2669–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ivushkin, K.; Bartholomeus, H.; Bregt, A.K.; Pulatov, A.; Kempen, B.; Sousa, L. Global mapping of soil salinity change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 231, 111260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kramer, I.; Mau, Y. Review: Modeling the effects of salinity and sodicity in agricultural systems. Water Resour. Res. 2023, 59, e2023WR034750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schaetzl, R.; Anderson, S. Soils Genesis and Geomorphology; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; p. 833. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rengasamy, P. World salinization with emphasis on Australi. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. El hasini, S.; Halima, I.O.; Azzouzi, M.E.; Douaik, A.; Azim, K.; Zouahri, A. Organic and inorganic remediation of soils affected by salinity in the sebkha of sed el mesjoune—Marrakech (Morocco). Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 193, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mousavi, S.; Regni, L.; Bocchini, M.; Mariotti, R.; Cultrera, N.G.M.; Mancuso, S.; Googlani, J.; Chakerolhosseini, M.R.; Guerrero, C.; Albertini, E.; et al. Physiological, epigenetic and genetic regulation in some olive cultivars under salt stress. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ferchichi, H.; Ben Hamouda, M.F.; Farhat, B.; Ben Mammou, A. Assessment of groundwater salinity using GIS and multivariate statistics in a coastal Mediterranean Aquifer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 15, 2473–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Loucks, D.P.; Jia, H. Managing water for life. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2012, 6, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  33. United Nations. Rural Population, Development and the Environment 2011. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/rural-population-development-and-environment-2011.html (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  34. Chartzoulakis, K. Salinity and olive: Growth, salt tolerance, photosynthesis and yield. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 78, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Acosta-Motos, J.R.; Ortuño, M.F.; Álvarez, S.; Hernández, J.A.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J. The use of reclaimed water is a viable and safe strategy for the irrigation of myrtle plants in a scenario of climate change. Water Supply 2019, 19, 1741–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meena, M.D.; Yadav, R.K.; Narjary, B.; Gajender, Y.; Jat, H.S.; Sheoran, P.; Meena, M.K.; Antil, R.S.; Meena, B.L.; Singh, H.V.; et al. Municipal solid waste (MSW): Strategies to improve salt affected soil sustainability: A review. Waste Manag. 2019, 84, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Romero-Trigueros, C.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Nicolás, E.N.; Paduano, A.; Salcedo, F.P.; Camposeo, S. Ripening Indices, Olive Yield and Oil Quality in Response to Irrigation with Saline Reclaimed Water and Deficit Strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vivaldi, G.A.; Camposeo, S.; Lopriore, G.; Romero-Trigueros, C.; Salcedo, F.P. Using saline reclaimed water on almond grown in Mediterranean conditions: Deficit irrigation strategies and salinity effects. Water Supply 2019, 19, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Field, C.B.; Barros, V.R.; Mach, K.J.; Mastrandrea, M.D. Technical summary. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 35–94. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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, 134235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, A. Soil salinization management for sustainable development: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 277, 111383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hoque, M.N.; Imran, S.; Hannan, A.; Paul, N.C.; Mahamud, M.A.; Chakrobortty, J.; Sarker, P.; Irin, I.J.; Brestic, M.; Rhaman, M.S. Organic amendments for mitigation of salinity stress in plants: A review. Life 2022, 12, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tarolli, P.; Luo, J.; Park, E.; Barcaccia, G.; Masin, R. Soil salinization in agriculture: Mitigationand adaptation strategies combining nature-based solutions and bioengineering. iScience 2024, 27, 108830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Temmerman, S.; Meire, P.; Bouma, T.J.; Herman, P.M.J.; Ysebaert, T.; De Vriend, H.J. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 2013, 504, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Barbier, E.B. A global strategy for protecting vulnerable coastal populations. Science 2014, 345, 1250–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. IUCN. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-Based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. In Proceedings of the World Conservation Congress, Honolulu, HI, USA, 6–10 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  47. Duever, M.J. Hydrologic processes for models of freshwater wetlands. Dev. Environ. Model. 1988, 12, 9–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Johnston, C.A. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: Effects on surface water quality. Crit. Rev. Environ. Control 1991, 21, 491–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Das, L. Dissolved Organic Carbon Originating from Riparian Buffers Imparting Self Purification Properties to River a Review. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol. 2023, 8, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
  50. Käkönen, M. Mekong Delta at the Crossroads: More Control or adaptation? Ambio 2008, 37, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Renaud, F.G.; Le, T.T.H.; Lindener, C.; Guong, V.T.; Sebesvari, Z. Resilience and shifts in agro-ecosystems facing increasing sea-level rise and salinity intrusion in Ben Tre Province, Mekong Delta. Clim. Chang. 2014, 133, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Loc, H.H.; Low Lixian, M.; Park, E.; Dung, T.D.; Shrestha, S.; Yoon, Y.J. How the saline water intrusion has reshaped the agricultural landscape of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, a review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 794, 148651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Garcia-Lopez, S.; Benavente, J.; Cruz-Sanjulian, J.J.; Olias, M. Conjunctive use of water resources as an alternative to a leaky reservoir in a mountainous, semiarid area (Adra River basin, SE Spain). Hydrogeol. J. 2009, 17, 1779–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rasouli, F.; Pouya, A.K.; Simunek, J. Modeling the effects of saline water use in wheat-cultivated lands using the UNSATCHEM model. Irrigat. Sci. 2013, 31, 1009–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dehghanipour, A.H.; Zahabiyoun, B.; Schoups, G.; Babazadeh, H. A WEAP-MODFLOW surface water-groundwater model for the irrigated Miyandoab plain, Urmia lake basin, Iran: Multi-objective calibration and quantification of historical drought impacts. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 223, 105704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, Q.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Dalla, G.; Taroll, P. Identifying dominant factors of waterlogging events in metropolitan coastal cities: The case study of Guangzhou, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cuevas, J.; Daliakopoulos, I.N.; del Moral, F.; Hueso, J.J.; Tsanis, I.K. A reviewof soilimproving cropping systems for soil salinization. Agronomy 2019, 9, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jesus, J.M.; Danko, A.S.; Fiúza, A.; Borges, M.T. Phytoremediation of salt-affected soils: A review of processes, applicability, and the impact of climate change. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 6511–6525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Nahar, K.; Alam, M.M.; Bhowmik, P.C.; Hossain, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Vara Prasad, M.N.; Ozturk, M.; Fujita, M. Potential use of halophytes to remediate saline soils. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 589341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. 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]
  61. Duarte, B.; Caçador, I. Iberian halophytes as agroecological solution for degraded lands and biosaline agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kanwal, S.; Ilyas, N.; Shabir, S.; Saeed, M.; Gul, R.; Zahoor, M.; Batool, N.; Mazhar, R. Application of biochar in mitigation of negative effects of salinity stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 526–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hoque, M.N.; Hannan, A.; Imran, S.; Paul, N.C.; Mondal, M.; Sadhin, M.; Rahman, M.; Bristi, J.M.; Dola, F.S.; Hanif, M.; et al. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria-Mediated Adaptive Responses of Plants Under Salinity Stress. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 1307–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Imran, S.; Sarker, P.; Hoque, M.N.; Paul, N.C.; Mahamud, M.A.; Chakrobortty, J.; Tahjib-Ul-Arif, M.; Latef, A.A.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Rhaman, M.S. Biochar actions for the mitigation of plant abiotic stress. Crop Pasture Sci. 2022, 21, 486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ansari, F.A.; Ahmad, I.; Pichtel, J. Growth stimulation and alleviation of salinity stress to wheat by the biofilm forming Bacillus pumilus strain FAB10. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 143, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kumar, A.; Singh, S.; Gaurav, A.K.; Srivastava, S.; Verma, J.P. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Biological tools for the mitigation of salinity stress in plants. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Galicia-Campos, E.; Garcia-Villaraco, A.; Montero-Plamero, M.B.; Gutierrez-Mañero, F.J.; Ramos-Solano, B. Modulation of photosynthesis and ROS scavenging response by benficial bacteria in Olea europaea Plantlets under Salt Stress Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bhise, K.K.; Bhagwat, P.K.; Dandge, P.B. Synergistic effect of Chryseobacterium gleum sp. SUK with ACC deaminase activity to alleviate salt stress and promote plant growth in Triticum aestivum L. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zamanzadeh-Nasrabadi, S.M.; Mohammadiapanah, F.; Sarikhan, S.; Shariati, V.; Saghafi, K.; Hosseini-Mazinani, M. Comprehensive genome analysis of Pseudomonas sp. SWRIQ11, a new plant growth-promoting bacterium that alleviates salinity stress in olive. 3 Biotech 2023, 13, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Shekafandeh, A.; Sirooeenejad, S.; Alsmoushtaghi, E. Influence of gibberellin on increasing of sodium chloride tolerance via some morpho-physiological changes in two olive cultivars. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2017, 82, 367–373. [Google Scholar]
  71. Metheni, K.; Abdallah, M.B.; Nouairi, I.; Smaoui, A.; Ammar, B.; Zarrouk, M.; Youssef, N.B. Salicylic acid and calcium pretreatments alleviate the toxic effect of salinity in the Oueslati olive variety. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 233, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gupta, B.; Huang, B. Mechanism of salinity tolerance in plants: Physiological, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Int. J. Genom. 2014, 2014, 701596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moula, I.; Boussadia, O.; Koubouris, G.; Hassine, M.B.; Boussetta, W.; van Labeke, M.C.; Braham, M. Ecophysiological and biochemical aspects of olive (Olea europaea L.) in response to salt stress and gibberellic acid-induced relief. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 132, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cordovilla, M.P.; Aparicio, C.; Melendo, M.; Bueno, M. Exogenous application of indol-3-acetic and salicylic acid improves tolerance to salt stress in olive plantlets (Olea europaea L. cultivar Picual) in growth chamber environments. Agronomy 2023, 13, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Li, J.; Liu, J.; Zhu, T.; Zhao, C.; Li, L.; Chen, M. The Role of Melatonin in Salt Stress Responses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Zhan, H.; Nie, X.; Zhang, T.; Li, S.; Wang, X.; Du, X.; Tong, W.; Song, W. Melatonin: A small molecule but important for salt stress tolerance in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zahedi, S.M.; Hosseini, M.S.; Hoveizeh, N.F.; Gholami, R.; Abdelrahman, M.; Phan Tran, L.S. Exogenous melatonin mitigates salinity-induced damage in olive seedlings by modulating ion homeostasis, antioxidant defense, and phytohormone balance. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 173, 1682–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Khan, T.A.; Saleem, M.; Fariduddin, Q. Recent advances and mechanistic insights on Melatonin-mediated salt stress signaling in plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 188, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fan, Z.; He, F.; Wu, T.; Li, B.; Xiao, J.; Wang, Z. Breaking the salty spell: Understanding action mechanism of melatonin and beneficial microbes as nature’s solution for mitigating salt stress in soybean. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2023, 161, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ahmed, M.; Decsi, K.; Tóth, Z. Different tactics of synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles, homeostasis ions, and phytohormones as regulators and adaptatively parameters to alleviate the adverse effects of salinity stress on plants. Life 2022, 13, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sarraf, M.; Vishwakarma, K.; Kumar, V.; Arif, N.; Das, S.; Johnson, R. Metal/Metalloid-Based Nanomaterials for Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance: An Overview of the Mechanisms. Plants 2022, 11, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ahmed, M.; Tóth, Z.; Decsi, K. The Impact of Salinity on Crop Yields and the Confrontational Behavior of Transcriptional Regulators, Nanoparticles, and Antioxidant Defensive Mechanisms under Stressful Conditions: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Al-Saif, A.M.; Sas-Paszt, L.; Mosa, W.F.A. Olive performance under the soil application of humic acid and the spraying of titanium and zinc nanoparticles under soil salinity stress. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kumar, D.; Singh, R.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Verma, K.K.; Tripathi, R.M.; Liu, H.; Dhankher, O.P.; Tripathi, R.D.; Sahi, S.V.; Seth, C.S. Review on interactions between nanomaterials and phytohormones: Novel perspectives and opportunities for mitigating environmental challenges. Plant Sci. 2024, 340, 111964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Shabala, S.; Wu, H.; Bose, J. Salt stress sensing and early signalling events in plant roots: Current knowlegde and hypothesis. Plant Sci. 2015, 241, 109–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Rugini, E.; Fedeli, E. Olive as an oilseed crop. In Legumes and Oilseed Crops; Bajaj, Y.P.S., Ed.; Sorubger: Berlín, Germany, 1990; pp. 593–641. [Google Scholar]
  88. Gucci, R.; Tattini, M. Salinity tolerance in olive. Hortic. Rev. 1997, 21, 177–213. [Google Scholar]
  89. Chartzoulakis, K.; Loupassaki, M.; Bertaki, M.; Androulakis, I. Effects of NaCl salinity on growth, ion content and CO2 assimilation rate of six olive cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2002, 96, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Aparicio, C.; Urrestarazu, M.; Cordovilla, M.P. Comparative physiological analysis of salinity effects in six olive genotypes. HortScience 2014, 49, 901–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Regni, L.; Del Pino, A.M.; Mousavi, S.; Palmerini, C.A.; Baldoni, L.; Mariotti, R.; Mairech, H.; Gardi, T.; D’Amato, R.; Proietti, P. Behaviour of four olive cultivars during salt stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ayaz, M.; Varol, N.; Yolcu, S.; Pelvan, A.; Kaya, Ü.; Aydogdu, E.; Bor, M.; Ördemir, F.; Türkan, İ. Three (Turkish) olive cultivars display contrasting salt stress-coping mechanisms under high salinity. Trees. 2021, 35, 1283–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dbara, S.; Abboud, S.; Bchir, A. Foliar potassium nitrate spray induces changes in potassium-sodium balance and biochemical mechanisms in olive (Olea europaea L. cv Chemlali) plants submitted to salt stress. J. Hortic. Postharvest Res. 2022, 5, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Boussadia, O.; Zgallai, H.; Mzid, N.; Zaabar, R.; Braham, M.; Doupis, G.; Koubouris, G. Physiological responses of two olive cultivars to salt stress. Plants 2023, 12, 1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tattini, M. Ionic relations of aeroponically-grown olive plants during salt stress. Plant Soil. 1994, 161, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Perica, S.; Goreta, S.; Selak, G.V. Growth, biomass allocation and leaf ion concentration of seven olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars under increased salinity. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 117, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bader, B.; Aissaoui, F.; Kmicha, I.; Ben Salem, A.; Chehab, H.; Gargouri, K.; Boujnah, D.; Chaieb, M. Effects of salinity stress water desalination, olive tree (Olea europaea L. cvs ‘Picholine’, ‘Meski’ and ‘Ascolana’) growth and ion accumulation. Desalination 2015, 364, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kchaou, H.; Larbi, A.; Gargouri, K.; Chaieb, M.; Morales, F.; Msallem, M. Assessment of tolerance to NaCl salinity of five olive cultivars, based on growth characteristics and Na+ and Cl exclusion mechanisms. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Palm, E.R.; Salzano, A.M.; Vergine, M.; Negro, W.G.N.; Sabbatini, L.; Balestrini, R.; De Pinto, M.C.; Fortunato, S.; Gohari, G.; Mancuso, S.; et al. Response to salinity stress in four Olea europaea L. genotypes: A multidisciplinary approach. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2024, 218, 105586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Soda, N.; Ephrath, J.E.; Dag, A.; Beiersdorf, I.; Presnov, E.; Yermiyahu, U.; Ben-Gal, A. Root growth dynamics of olive (Olea europaea L.) affected by irrigation induced salinity. Plant Soil 2017, 411, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tan, J.; Ben-Gal, A.; Shtein, I.; Bustan, A.; Dag, A.; Erel, R. Root structural plasticity enhances salt tolerance in mature olives. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 179, 104224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Horie, T.; Costa, A.; Kim, T.H.; Han, M.J.; Horie, R.; Leung, H.Y.; Miyao, A.; Hirochika, H.; An, G.; Schroeder, J.I. Rice OsHKT2;1 transporter mediates large Na+ influx component into K+-starved roots for growth. EMBO J. 2007, 26, 3003–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Almeida, P.; Katschnig, D.; de Boer, A.H. HKT transporters—State of the art. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 20359–20385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hamamoto, S.; Horie, T.; Hauser, U.; Deinlein, U.; Schroeder, J.I.; Uozumi, N. HKT transporters mediate salt stress resistance in plants: From structure and function to the field. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hao, H.; Wrang, Y.; Yan, V.; Liu, Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, S. A Review on Plant Responses to Salt Stress and Their Mechanisms of Salt Resistance. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Deinlein, U.; Stephan, A.B.; Horie, T.; Luo, W.; Xu, G.; Schroeder, J.I. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Connor, J.D.; Fereres, E. The physiology of adaptation and yield in olive. Hort. Rev. 2005, 31, 155–229. [Google Scholar]
  108. Møller, I.S.; Gilliham, M.; Jha, D.; Mayo, G.M.; Roy, S.J.; Coates, J.C.; Haseloff, J.; Tester, M. Shoot Na+ exclusion and increased salinity tolerance engineered by cell type-specific alteration of Na+ transport in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Zhang, J.L.; Flowers, T.J.; Wang, S.M. Mechanisms of sodium uptake by roots of higher plants. Plant Soil 2010, 326, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fernández, J. Understanding olive adaptation to abiotic stresses as a tool to increase crop performance. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 103, 158–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rossi, L.; Francini, A.; Minnocci, A.; Sebastiani, L. Salt stress modifies apoplastic barriers in olive (Olea europaea L.): A comparison between a salt-tolerant and a saltsensitive cultivar. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 192, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tattini, M.; Lombardi, L.; Gucci, R. The effect of NaCl stress and relief on gas exchange properties of two olive cultivars differing in tolerance to salinity. Plant Soil 1997, 197, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rossi, L.; Borghi, M.; Francini, A.; Lin, X.; Xie, D.Y.; Sebastiani, L. Salt stress induces differential regulation of the phenylpropanoid pathway in Olea europaea cultivars Frantoio (salt-tolerant) and Leccino (salt-sensitive). J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 204, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Sodini, M.; Francini, A.; Sebastini, L. Early salinity response in root of salt sensitive Olea europaea L. cv Leccino. Plant Stress 2023, 10, 100264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tester, M.; Davemport, R. Na+ tolerance and Na+ transport in higher plants. Ann. Bot. 2003, 91, 503–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Hayat, S.; Hayat, Q.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Wani, A.S.; Pichtel, J.; Ahmad, A. Role of proline under changing environments: A review. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 1456–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ben Abdallah, M.; Trupiano, D.; Polzella, A.; De Zio, E.; Sassi, M.; Scaloni, A.; Zarrouk, M.; Youssef, N.B.; Scippa, G.S. Unraveling physiological, biochemical and molecular mechanisms involved in olive (Olea europaea L. cv. Chétoui) tolerance to drought and salt stresses. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 220, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Munns, R.; Passioura, J.B.; Colmer, T.D.; Byrt, C.S. Osmotic adjustment and energy limitations to plant growth in saline soil. New Phytol. 2020, 225, 1091–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Ben Rouina, B.; Ben Ahmed, C.; Athar, H.R.; Boukhris, M. Water relations, proline accumulation and photosynthetic activity in olive tree (Olea europaea L. cv. Chemlali) in response to salt stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2006, 38, 1397–1406. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Boukhris, M. Comparative responses of three Tunisian olive cultivars to salt stress: From physiology to management practice. In Agricultural Irrigation Research Progress; Alonso, D., Iglesias, H.J., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 109–129. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Boukhris, M. Changes in water relations, photosynthetic activity and proline accumulation in one-year-old olive trees (Olea europaea L. cv. Chemlali) in response to NaCl salinity. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2008, 154, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Sensoy, S.; Boukhris, M.; Abdallah, F.B. Changes in gas exchange, proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009, 67, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Das, K.; Roychoudhury, A. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response antioxidant as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci. 2014, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Goreta, S.; Bučević-Popović, V.; Pavela-Vrančić, M.; Perica, S. Salinity-induced changes in growth, superoxide dismutase activity, and ion content of two olive cultivars. J. Plant Nutr. 2007, 170, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Li, N.; Wang, X.; Ma, B.; Du, C.; Zheng, L.; Wang, Y. Expression of a Na+/H+ antiporter Rtnhx1 from a recretohalophyte Reaumuria trigyna improved salt tolerance of transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 218, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Azimi, M.; Khoshzaman, T.; Taheri, M.; Dadras, A. Evaluation of salinity tolerance of three olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2021, 22, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Aparicio, C. The Olive Tree (Olea europaea L.) and Salt Stress. Importance of Growth Regulators. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain, 2015. Available online: https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=1273335 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
  128. Gholami, R.; Hashempour, A.; Hoveized, N.F.; Zahedi, S.M. Evaluation of salinity tolerance between six young potted elite olive cultivars using morphological and physiological characteristics. Appl. Fruit Sci. 2024, 66, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Navarro, J.M.; Pérez-Tornero, O.; Morte, A. Alleviation of salt stress in citrus seedlings inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi depends on the rootstock salt tolerance. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Therios, I.N.; Misopolinos, N.D. Genotypic response to sodium chloride salinity of four major olive cultivars (Olea europea L.). Plant Soil 1988, 106, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Bazakos, C.; Manioudaki, M.E.; Therios, I.; Voyiatzis, D.; Kafetzopoulos, D.; Awada, T.; Kalaitzis, P. Comparative transcriptome analysis of two olive cultivars in response to NaCl-stress. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Karimi, H.R.; Hasanpour, Z. Effects of salinity and waters on growth and macro nutrients concentration of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 37, 1937–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kaya, C.; Sonmez, O.; Aydemir, S.; Ashraf, M.; Dikilitas, M. Exogenous application of mannitol and thiourea regulates plant growth and oxidative stress responses in salt-stressed maize (Zea mays L.). J. Plant Interact. 2013, 8, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Poury, N.; Seifi, E.; Alizadeh, M. The effect of proline and salt stress on growth characteristics of three olive cultivars at three different stages of the growing season. J. Chem. Health Risks. 2019, 9, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tattini, M.; Bertoni, P.; Caselli, S. Genotypic responses of olive plants to sodium chloride. J. Plant Nutr. 1992, 15, 1467–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Klein, I.; Ben-Tal, Y.; Lavee, S.; de Malach, Y.; David, I. Saline irrigation of cv. Manzanillo and Uovo di Piccione trees. Acta Hort. 1994, 356, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Rewald, B.; Leuschner, C.; Wiesman, Z.; Ephrath, J. Influence of salinity on root hydraulic properties of three olive varieties. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 145, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rewald, B.; Rachmilevitch, S.; Ephrath, J. Salt stress effects on root systems of two mature olive cultivars. Acta Hortic. 2011, 888, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rewald, B.; Shelef, O.; Ephrath, J.E.; Rachmilevitch, S. Adaptive plasticity of salts-tressed root systems. In Ecophysiology and Responses of Plants Under Salt Stress; Ahmad, P., Azooz, M.M., Prasad, M.N.V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 169–201. [Google Scholar]
  140. Schreiber, L.; Hartmann, K.; Skrabs, M.; Zeier, J. Apoplastic barriers in roots: Chemical composition of endodermal and hypodermal cell walls. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50, 1267–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Stoláriková, M.; Vaculík, M.; Lux, A.; Di Baccio, D.; Minnocci, A.; Andreucci, A.; Sebastiani, L. Anatomical differences of poplar (Populus × euramericana clone I-214) roots exposed to zinc excess. Biologia 2012, 67, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vigo, C.; Therios, I.N.; Bosabalidis, A.M. Plant growth, nutrient concentration, and leaf anatomy of olive plants irrigated with diluted seawater. J. Plant Nutr. 2005, 28, 1001–11021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Melgar, J.C.; Syvertsen, J.P.; Martínez, V.; García-Sánchez, F. Leaf gas exchange, water relations, nutrient content and growth in citrus and olive seedlings under salinity. Biol. Plant. 2008, 52, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kchaou, H.; Larbi, A.; Chaieb, M.; Sagardoy, R.; Msallem, M.; Morales, F. Genotypic differentiation in the stomatal response to salinity and contrasting photosynthetic and photoprotection responses in five olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 160, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Fayek, M.A.; Fayed, T.A.; Emtithal, H.; El-Sayed, E.; El-Hameed, A. Comparative impacts of salt stress on survival and leaf anatomy traits in olive genotypes. Biosci. Res. 2018, 15, 565–574. [Google Scholar]
  146. Saidana Naija, D.; Ben Mansour Gueddes, S.; Braham, M. Effects of water scarcity and salinity on the anatomy of the Tunisian table olive cultivar ‘Meski’. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2021, 49, 12157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Barba-Espín, G.; Clemente-Moreno, M.J.; Álvarez, S.; García-Legaz, M.F.; Hernandez, J.A.; Diaz-Vivancos, P. Salicylic acid negatively affects the response to salt stress in pea plants. Plant Biol. 2011, 13, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Acosta-Motos, J.R.; Ortuño, M.F.; Bernal-Vicente, A.; Díaz-Vivancos, P.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J.; Hernández, J.A. Plant responses to salt stress: Adaptative mechanisms. Agronomy 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wu, H. Plant salt tolerance and Na+ sensing and transport. Crop J. 2018, 6, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Tattini, M.; Gucci, R.; Coradeschi, M.A.; Ponzio, C.; Everarard, J.D. Growth, gas exchange and ion content in Olea europaea plants during salinity and subsequent relief. Physiol. Plant. 1995, 95, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bacelar, E.A.; Santos, D.L.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.M.; Lopes, J.I.; Gonçalvez, C.; Ferreira, T.C.; Corrira, C.M. Physiological behaviour, oxidative damage and antioxidative protection of olive trees grown under different irrigation regimes. Plant Soil 2007, 292, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Proietti, P.; Nasini, L.; Del Buono, D.; D’Amato, R.; Tedeschini, E.; Businelli, D. Selenium protects olive (Olea europaea L.) from drought stress. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 164, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Roussos, P.A.; Assimakopoulou, A.; Nikoloudi, A.; Salmas, I.; Nifakos, K.; Kalogeropoulos, P.; Kostelenos, G. Intra- and inter-cultivar impacts of salinity stress on leaf photosynthetic performance, carbohydrates and nutrient content of nine indigenous Greek olive cultivars. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2017, 39, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Del Buono, D.; Regni, L.; Del Pino, A.M.; Bartucca, M.L.; Palmerini, C.A.; Proietti, P. Effects of megafol on the olive cultivar ‘Arbequina’ grown under serve saline stress in terms of physiological traits, oxidative stress, antioxidant defenses, and cytosolic Ca2+. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 603576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Skodra, C.; Michailidis, M.; Dasenaki, M.; Ganopoulos, I.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Tanou, G.; Molassiotis, A. Unraveling salt-responsive tissue-specific metabolic pathways in olive tree. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 173, 13565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Centritto, M.; Loreto, F.; Chartzoulakis, K. The use of low [CO2] to estimate diffusional and non-diffusional limitations of photosynthetic capacity of salt-stressed olive saplings. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Tabatabaei, S.J. Salinity Stress and Olive: An Overview. Plant Stress 2007, 1, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  158. Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Gibberellic acid mediated induction of salt tolerance in wheat plants: Growth, ionic partitioning, photosynthesis, yield and hormonal homeostasis. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 86, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Tattini, M.; Traversi, M.L. On the mechanism of salt tolerance in olive (Olea europaea L.) under low- or high-Ca2+ supply. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009, 65, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Sensoy, S.; Boukhriss, M.; Ben Abdullah, F. Exogenous proline effects on Photosynthetic performance and antioxidant defense system of young olive tree. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 4216–4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bongi, G.; Loreto, F. Gas-exchange properties of salt stressed olive (Olea europea L.) leaves. Plant Physiol. 1989, 90, 1408–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Loreto, F.; Centritto, M.; Chartzoulakis, K. Photosynthetic limitations in olive cultivars with different sensitivity to salt stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. 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]
  164. Singh, S.K.; and Reddy, K.R. Regulation of photosynthesis, fluorescence, stomatal conductance and water-use efficiency of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) under drought. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B 2011, 105, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Proietti, P.; Nasini, L.; Ilarioni, L. Photosynthetic behavior of Spanish arbequina and Italian Maurino olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars under superintensive grove conditions. Photosynthetica 2012, 50, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yamane, K.; Mitsuya, S.; Taniguchi, M.; Miyake, H. Salt-induced chloroplast protrusion is the process of exclusion of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/ oxygenase from chloroplasts into cytoplasm in leaves of rice. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 1663–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Munns, R.; James, R.A.; Lauchli, A. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 1025–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kaouther, Z.; Mariem, B.F.; Fardaous, M.; Cherif, H. Impact of salt stress (NaCl) on growth, chlorophyll content and fluorescence of Tunisian cultivars of chili pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.). J. Stress Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 8, 236–252. [Google Scholar]
  169. Morales, F.; Abadía, A.; Abadía, J. Photoinhibition and photoprotection under nutrient deficiencies, drought and salinity. In Photoprotection. Photoinhibition, Gene Regulation, and Environment; Demmig-Adams, B., Adams, W.W., III, Mattoo, A.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 65–85. [Google Scholar]
  170. Shaheen, M.A.; Hegazi, A.A.; Hmmam, I.S.A. Effect of salinity treatments on vegetative characteristics and leaves chemical content of transplants of five olive cultivars. J. Horticult. Sci. Ornament. Plants 2011, 3, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  171. Yasar, F.; Ellialtioglu, S.; Yildiz, K. Effect of salt stress on antioxidant defense systems, lipid peroxidation, and chlorophyll content in green bean. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2008, 55, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and anti-oxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Saha, P.; Chatterjee, P.; Biswas, A.K. NaCl pretreatment alleviates salt stress by enhancement of antioxidant defense system and osmolyte accumulation in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2010, 48, 593–600. [Google Scholar]
  174. Din, J.; Khan, S.U.; Ali, I.; Gurmani, A.R. Physiological and agronomic response of canola varieties to drought stress. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2011, 21, 78–82. [Google Scholar]
  175. Arjenaki, F.G.; Jabbari, R.; Morshedi, A. Evaluation of drought stress on relative water content, chlorophyll content and mineral elements of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2012, 4, 726–729. [Google Scholar]
  176. Sevengor, S.; Yasar, F.; Kusvuran, S.; Ellialtioglu, S. The effect of salt stress on growth, chlorophyll content, lipid peroxidation and antioxidative enzymes of pumpkin seedling. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 4920–4924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Keshavkant, S.; Padhan, J.; Parkhey, S.; Naithani, S.C. Physiological and antioxidant responses of germinating Cicer arietinum seeds to salt stress. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 59, 206–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Demming-Adams, B.; Adams, W.W., III. Photoprotection and other responses of plants to high light stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1992, 43, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Takahashi, S.; Badger, M.R. Photo protection in plants: A new light on photosystem II damage. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. García-Plazaola, J.I.; Esteban, R.; Fernández-Marín, B.; Kranner, I.; Porcar-Castell, A. Thermal energy dissipation and xanthophyll cycles beyond the Arabidopsis model. Photosynth. Res. 2012, 113, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Syvertsen, J.P.; Melgar, J.C.; García-Sánchez, F. Salinity Tolerance and Leaf Water Use Efficiency in Citrus. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 135, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Li, H.; Hou, X.; Bertin, N.; Ding, R.; Du, T. Quantitative Responses of Tomato Yield, Fruit Quality and Water Use Efficiency to Soil Salinity under Different Water Regimes in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 277, 108134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Larsen, F.S.; Higgins Wir, A. Diurnal water relations of apple, apricot, grape, olive and peach in an arid environment. Sci. Hortic. 1989, 39, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Rhızopoulou, S.; Meletiou-Christou, M.S.; Diamandoglou, S. Water relations for sun and shade leaves of four Mediterranean evergreen sclerophytes. J. Exp. Bot. 1991, 42, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gucci, R.; Lombardini, L.; Tattini, M. Analysis of leaf water relations in leaves of two olive cultivars (Olea europaea) differing in tolerance to salinity. Tree Physiol. 1997, 17, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Dichio, B.; Xiloyannis, C.; Angelopoulos, K.; Nuzzo, V.; Bufo, S.A.; Celano, G. Drought-induced variations of water relations parameters in Olea europea. Plant Soil 2003, 257, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Vitagliano, C.; Sebastiani, L. Physiological and biochemical remarks on environmental stress in olive (Olea europaea L.). Acta Hortic. 2002, 586, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Larbi, A.; Kchaou, H.; Gaaliche, B.; Gargouri, K.; Boulal, H.K.; Morales, F. Supplementary potassium and calcium improves salt tolerance in olive plants. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 260, 108912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Loupassaki, M.H.; Chartzoulakis, K.S.; Digalaki, N.B.; Androulakis, I.I. Effects of salt stress on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium in leaves, shoots, and roots of six olive cultivars. J. Plant Nutr. 2002, 25, 2457–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Tattini, M.; Traversi, M.L. Responses to changes in Ca2+ supply in two Mediterranean evergreens, Phillyrea latifolia and Pistacia lentiscus, during salinity stress and subsequent relief. Ann. Bot. 2008, 102, 609–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Rus, A.; Yokoi, S.; Sharkhuu, A.; Reddy, M.; Lee, B.-H.; Matsumoto, T.K.; Koiwa, H.; Zhu, J.-K.; Bressan, R.A.; Hasegawa, P.M. AtHKT1 is a salt tolerance determinant that controls Na+ entry into plant roots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 14150–14155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Slama, F. Intervention des racines dans le sensibilite ou tolerance a NaCl des plantes cultivees. Agronomie 1986, 6, 651–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Ismail, H.; Maksimović, J.D.; Maksimović, V.; Shabala, L.; Živanović, B.D.; Tian, Y.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Shabala, S. Rutin, a flavonoid with antioxidant activity, improves plant salinity tolerance by regulating K+ retention and Na+ exclusion from leaf mesophyll in quinoa and broad beans. Funct. Plant Biol. 2015, 43, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. El-Shafey, N.M.; AbdElgawad, H. Luteolin, a bioactive flavone compound extracted from Cichorium endivia L. subsp. divaricatum alleviates the harmful effect of salinity on maize. Acta Physiol. Plant 2012, 34, 2165–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Parvin, K.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.B.; Mohsin, S.M.; Fujita, M. Quercetin mediated salt tolerance in tomato through the enhancement of plant antioxidant defense and glyoxalase systems. Plants 2019, 8, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Shenker, M.; Ben-Gal, A.; Shani, U. Sweet corn response to combined nitrogen and salinity environmental stresses. Plant Soil 2003, 256, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Greenway, H.; Munns, R. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1980, 31, 149–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Grattan, S.R.; Grieve, C.M. Salinity–mineral nutrient relations in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 1998, 78, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Giorio, P.; Sorrentino, G.; d’Andria, R. Stomatal behaviour, leaf water status and photosynthetic response in field-grown olive trees under water deficit. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1999, 42, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Chaves, M.M.; Flexas, J.; Pinheiro, C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: Regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Boughalleb, F.; Mhamdi, M. Possible involvement of proline and the antioxidant defense systems in the drought tolerance of three olive cultivars grown under increasing water deficit regimes. Agric. J. 2011, 6, 378–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Pierantozzi, P.; Torres, M.; Bodoira, R.; Maestri, D. Water relations, biochemical–physiological and yield responses of olive trees (Olea europaea L. cvs. Arbequina and Manzanilla) under drought stress during the pre-flowering and flowering period. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 125, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Trabelsi, L.; Gargouri, K.; Ghrab, M.; Mbadra, C.; Ben Hassena, A.; Ncube, B.; Soua, N.; Maktouf, S.; Khlifi, M.; Van Staden, J.; et al. The effect of drought and saline water on the nutritional behaviour of the olive tree (Olea europaea L.) in an arid climate. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2024, 165, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Boualem, S.; Boutaleb, F.; Ababou, A.; Gacem, F. Effect of salinity on the physiological behavior of the olive tree (variety sigoise). J. Fundam. Appl. Sci. 2019, 11, 525–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Demiral, M.A.; Uygun, D.A.; Uygun, M.; Kasirğa, E.; Karagözler, A.A. Biochemical response of Olea europaea cv. Gemlik to short-term salt stress. Turk. J. Biol. 2011, 35, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Sensoy, S.; Boukhriss, M.; Abdullah, F.B. Saline water irrigation effects on antioxidant defense system and proline accumulation in leaves and roots of field-grown olive. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 11484–11490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Regni, L.; Del Pino, A.; Mousavi, S.; Palmerini, C.; Baldoni, L.; Mariotti, R.; Mairech, H.; Calisti, R.; Proietti, P. Physiological and biochemical traits of different olive tree cultivars during salt stress. IX Int. Symp. Irrig. Hortic. Crop 2019, 1335, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Ikbal, F.E.; Hernández, J.A.; Barba-Espín, G.; Koussa, T.; Aziz, A.; Faize, M.; Diaz-Vivancos, P. Enhanced salt-induced antioxidative responses involve a contribution of polyamine biosynthesis in grapevine plants. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Cardi, M.; Castiglia, D.; Ferrara, M.; Guerriero, G.; Chiurazzi, M.; Esposito, S. The effects of salt stress cause a diversion of basal metabolism in barley roots: Possible different roles for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase isoforms. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 86, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Ramanjulu, S.; Sudhakar, C. Proline metabolism during dehydration in two mulberry genotypes with contrasting drought tolerance. J. Plant Physiol. 2000, 157, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. De Lacerda, C.F.; Cambraia, J.; Oliva, M.A.; Ruiz, H.A.; Prisco, J.T. Solute accumulation and distribution during shoot and leaf development in two sorghum genotypes under salt stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2003, 49, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Chen, Z.; Cuin, T.A.; Zhou, M.; Twomey, A.; Naidu, B.P.; Shabala, S. Compatible solute accumulation and stress-mitigating effects in barley genotypes contrasting in their salt tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 4245–4255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Hasegawa, P.M.; Bressan, R.A.; Zhu, J.K.; Bohnert, H.J. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2000, 51, 463–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Khatkar, D.; Kuhad, M.S. Short-term salinity induced changes in two wheat cultivars at different growth stages. Biol. Plant. 2000, 43, 629–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Ashraf, M.; Foolad, M.R. Improving plant abiotic-stress resistance by exogenous application of osmoprotectants glycine betaine and proline. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 59, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Gholami, R.; Fahadi Hoveizeh, N.; Zahedi, S.M.; Gholami, H.; Carillo, P. Effect of three water-regimes on morpho-physiological, biochemical and yield responses of local and foreign olive cultivars under field conditions. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Zahedi, S.M.; Hosseini, M.S.; Meybodi, N.D.H.; Abadía, J.; Germ, M.; Gholami, R.; Abdelrahman, M. Evaluation of drought tolerance in three commercial pomegranate cultivars using photosynthetic pigments, yield parameters and biochemical traits as biomarkers. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 261, 107357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Szabados, L.; Savouré, A. Proline: A multifunctional amino acid. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Ben Hassine, A.; Ghanem, M.E.; Bouzid, S.; Lutts, S. An inland and a coastal population of the Mediterranean xero-halophyte species Atriplex halimus L. differ in their ability to accumulate proline and glycinebetaine in response to salinity and water stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1315–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Ben Ahmed, C.; Magdich, S.; Rouina, B.B.; Boukhris, M.; Abdullah, F.B. Saline water irrigation effects on soil salinity distribution and some physiological responses of field grown Chemlali olive. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 113, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Sofo, A.; Dichio, B.; Xiloyannis, C.; Masia, A. Lipoxygenase activity and proline accumulation in leaves and roots of olive tree in response to drought stress. Physiol. Plant. 2004, 121, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Van den Ende, W.; Valluru, R. Sucrose, sucrosyl oligosaccharides, and oxidative stress: Scavenging and salvaging? J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Trabelsi, L.; Gargouri, K.; Ben Hassena, A.; Mbadra, C.; Ghrab, M.; Ncube, B.; Van Staden, J.; Gargouri, R. Impact of drought and salinity on olive water status and physiological performance in an arid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Gargouri, K. Influence of Soil Fertility on Olive (Olea europaea L.) Tree Nutritional Status and Production Under Arid Climates. Ph.D. Thesis, Universita Degli Studi Di Palermo, Palermo, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  225. Ben Hassena, A.; Zouari, M.; Trabelsi, L.; Decou, R.; Ben Amar, F.; Chaari, A.; Soua, N.; Labrousse, P.; Khabou, W.; Zouari, N. Potential effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in mitigating the salinity of treated wastewater in young olive plants (Olea europaea L. cv. Chetoui). Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Annabi, K.; Laaribi, I.; Gouta, H.; Laabidi, F.; Mechri, B.; Ajmi, L.; Zouari, I.; Muscolo, A.; Panuccio, M.R.; Mezghani, M.A. Protein content, antioxidant activity, carbohydrates and photosynthesis in leaves of girdled stems of four olive cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Lama-Muñoz, A.; del Mar Contreras, M.; Espínola, F.; Moya, M.; Romero, I.; Castro, E. Characterization of the lignocellulosic and sugars composition of different olive leaves cultivars. Food Chem. 2000, 329, 127153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Tattini, M.; Gucci, R.; Romani, A.; Baldi, A.; Everard, J.D. Changes in non-structural carbohydrates in olive (Olea europaea L.) leaves during root zone salinity stress. Physiol. Plant. 1996, 98, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Conde, A.; Silva, P.; Agasse, A.; Conde, C.; Gerós, H. Mannitol transport and mannitol dehydrogenase activities are coordinated in Olea europaea under salt and osmotic stresses. Plant Cell Physiol. 2011, 52, 1766–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Žuna Pfeiffer, T.; Štolfa, I.; Hoško, M.; Žanić, M.; Pavičić, N.; Cesar, V.; Lepeduš, H. Comparative study of leaf anatomy and certain biochemical traits in two olive cultivars. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2020, 75, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  231. Barceló, A.R. Lignification in plant cell walls. Int. Rev. Cytol. 1997, 176, 87–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Espartero, J.; Pintor-Toro, J.A.; Pardo, J.M. Differential accumulation of S-adenosylmethionine synthetase transcripts in response to salt stress. Plant Mol. Biol. 1994, 25, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  233. Quiroga, M.; Guerrero, C.; Botella, M.Á.; Barceló, A.; Amaya, I.; Medina, M.I.; Alonso, F.J.; De Forchetti, S.M.; Tigier, H.; Valpuesta, V. A tomato peroxidase involved in the synthesis of lignin and suberin. Plant Physiol. 2000, 122, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Sánchez-Aguayo, I.; Rodríguez-Galán, J.M.; García, R.; Torreblanca, J.; Pardo, J.M. Salt stress enhances xylem development and expression of S-adenosyl-L-methionine synthase in lignifying tissues of tomato plants. Planta 2004, 220, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Ben Nja, R. Effet d’un Stress Salin sur la Teneur en Polymères Pariétaux dans les Feuilles de Luzerne (Medicago sativa cv Gabès) et sur la Distribution dans les Cellules de Transfert des Fines Nervures. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université de Limoges, Limoges, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  236. Niederberger, V.; Purohit, A.; Oster, J.P.; Spitzauer, S.; Valenta, R.; Pauli, G. The allergen profile of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) pollen: Cross-reactivity with allergens from various plant species. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2002, 32, 933–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  237. Lee, M.H.; Cho, E.J.; Wi, S.G.; Bae, H.; Kim, J.E.; Cho, J.-Y.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.-H.; Chung, B.Y. Divergences in morphological changes and antioxidant responses in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive rice seedlings after salt stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 70, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Mimmo, T.; Bartucca, M.L.; Del Buono, D.; Cesco, S. Italian ryegrass for the phytoremediation of solutions polluted with terbuthylazine. Chemosphere 2015, 119, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Del Buono, D.; Pannacci, E.; Bartucca, M.L.; Nasini, L.; Proietti, P.; Tei, F. Use of two grasses for the phytoremediation of aqueous solutions polluted with terbuthylazine. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2016, 18, 885–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Bhaduri, A.M.; Fulekar, M.H. Antioxidant enzyme responses of plants to heavy metal stress. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Keunen, E.L.S.; Peshev, D.; Vangronsveld, J.; Van Den Ende, W.I.M.; Cuypers, A.N.N. Plant sugars are crucial players in the oxidative challenge during abiotic stress: Extending the traditional concept. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 1242–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. López-Gómez, E.; San Juan, M.A.; Diaz-Vivancos, P.; Beneyto, J.M.; García-Legaz, M.F.; Hernández, J.A. Effect of rootstocks grafting and boron on the antioxidant systems and salinity tolerance of loquat plants (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.). Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 60, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Ertani, A.; Schiavon, M.; Muscolo, A.; Nardi, S. Alfalfa plant-derived biostimulant stimulate short-term growth of salt stressed Zea mays L. plants. Plant Soil 2013, 364, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Bano, S.; Muhammad Ashraf, M.A.; Akram, N.A.; Al-Qurainy, F. Regulation in some vital physiological attributes and antioxidative defense system in carrot (Daucus carota L.) under saline stress. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. Angew. Bol. 2012, 85, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  245. Lima Cabello, E.; de Torres, S.; Torrellas López, E.; Medina-Correa, C.; León, I.; Bejarano, P.; Rueda-Guzmán, E.; de la Fuente, E.; Soto-Pascual, A.; Salas-Sánchez, M.; et al. Resilience of olive tree cultivars to intensive salt stress. High Sch. Stud. Agric. Sci. Res. 2023, 12, 66–76. [Google Scholar]
  246. Tadić, J.; Dumičić, G.; Veršić Bratinčević, M.; Vitko, S.; Radić Brkanac, S. Physiological and biochemical response of wild olive (Olea europaea Subsp. europaea var. sylvestris) to salinity. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 712005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Iwaniuk, P.; Łuniewski, S.; Kaczy´nski, P.; Łozowicka, B. The influence of humic acids and nitrophenols on metabolic compounds and pesticide behavior in wheat under biotic Stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Demir, S.; Cetinkaya, H. Effects of saline conditions on polyphenol and protein content and photosynthetic response of different olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 2599–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Naczk, M.; Shahidi, F. Extraction and analysis of phenolics in food. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1054, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Ranalli, A.; Contento, S.; Lucera, L.; Di Febo, M.; Marchegiani, D.; Di Fonzo, V. Factors affecting the contents of iridoid oleuropein in olive leaves (Olea europaea L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Chutipaijit, S.; Cha-Um, S.; Sompornpailin, K. Differential accumulations of proline and flavonoids in indica rice varieties against salinity. Pak. J. Bot. 2009, 41, 2497–2506. [Google Scholar]
  252. Azariadis, A.; Vouligeas, F.; Salame, E.; Kouhen, M.; Rizou, M.; Blazakis, K.; Sotiriou, P.; Ezzat, L.; Mekkaoui, K.; Monzer, A.; et al. Response of Prolyl 4 Hydroxylases, Arabinogalactan Proteins and Homogalacturonans in Four Olive Cultivars under Long-Term Salinity Stress in Relation to Physiological and Morphological Changes. Cells 2023, 12, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. Bashir, M.A.; Silvestri, C.; Coppa, E.; Brunori, E.; Cristofori, V.; Rugini, E.; Ahmad, T.; Hafiz, I.A.; Abbasi, N.A.; Shah, M.K.N.; et al. Response of olive shoots to salinity stress suggests the involvement of sulfur metabolism. Plants 2021, 10, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Valderrama, R.; Corpas, F.J.; Carreras, A.; Fernández-Ocaña, A.; Chaki, M.; Luque, F.; Gómez-Rodríguez, M.V.; Colmenero-Varea, P.; del Río, L.A.; Barroso, J.B. Nitrosative stress in plants. FEBS Lett. 2007, 581, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  255. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B.; Mittra, B.; Mohanty, P. Salt-stress induced alterations in protein profile and protease activity in the mangrove Bruguiera parviflora. Z. Naturforsch. C. 2004, 59, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. Mansour, M.M.F. Nitrogen containing compounds and adaptation of plants to salinity stress. Biol. Plant. 2000, 43, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Kouhen, M. Involvment of the Cell Wall Arabinogalactan Proteins in the Salinity Tolerance Mechanism of Four Greek Olive Cultivars. Master’s Thesis, Department of Horticultural Genetics and Biotechnology CIHEAM-Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Chania, Greece, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  259. Ouyang, B.; Yang, T.; Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Fei, Z.; Ye, Z. Identification of early salt stress response genes in tomato root by suppression subtractive hybridization and microarray analysis. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Olmos, E.; García De La Garma, J.; Gomez-Jimenez, M.C.; Fernandez-Garcia, N. Arabinogalactan proteins are involved in salt-adaptation and vesicle trafficking in tobacco by-2 cell cultures. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 274585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Zhao, C.; Zayed, O.; Zeng, F.; Liu, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, P.; Hsu, C.; Tuncil, Y.E.; Tao, W.A.; Carpita, N.C.; et al. Arabinose biosynthesis is critical for salt stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2019, 224, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Meyer, S.; Genty, B. Mapping intercellular CO2 mole fraction (Ci) in Rosa rubiginosa leaves fed with abscisic acid by using chlorophyll fluorescence imaging: Significance of Ci estimated from leaf gas exchange. Plant Physiol. 1998, 116, 947–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Seeber, F.; Aliverti, A.; Zanetti, G. The plant-type ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase/ferredoxin redox system as a possible drug target against apicomplexan human parasites. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2005, 11, 3159–3172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Badger, M.R.; Price, G.D. The role of carbonic anhydrase in photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1994, 45, 369–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Park, S.W.; Kaimoyo, E.; Kumar, D.; Mosher, S.; Klessig, D.F. Methyl salicylate is a critical mobile signal for plant systemic acquired resistance. Science 2007, 318, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Rivas-San Vicente, M.; Plasencia, J. Salicylic acid beyond defence: Its role in plant growth and development. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 3321–3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  267. Khan, M.I.R.; Fatma, M.; Per, T.S.; Anjum, N.A.; Khan, N.A. Salicylic acid-induced abiotic stress tolerance and underlying mechanisms in plants. Front Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 135066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Cabane, M.; Afif, D.; Hawkins, S. Lignins and abiotic stresses. In Advances in botanical research. Acad. Press 2012, 61, 219–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Jimenez-Lopez, J.C.; Kotchoni, S.O.; Hernandez-Soriano, M.C.; Gachomo, E.W.; Alché, J.D. Structural functionality, catalytic mechanism modeling and molecular allergenicity of phenylcoumaran benzylic ether reductase, an olive pollen (Ole e 12) allergen. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2013, 27, 873–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Castro, L.; Crespo, J.F.; Rodríguez, J.; Rodríguez, R.; Villalba, M. Immunoproteomic tools are used to identify masked allergens: Ole e 12, an allergenic isoflavone reductase from olive (Olea europaea) pollen. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Proteins Proteom. 2015, 1854, 1871–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Mansour, M.M.F.; Salama, K.H. Cellular basis of salinity tolerance in plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2004, 52, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Ashraf, M.P.J.C.; Harris, P.J. Potential biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance in plants. Plant Sci. 2004, 166, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Almeida, A.M.; Cardoso, L.A.; Santos, D.M.; Torné, J.M.; Fevereiro, P.S. Trehalose and its applications in plant biotechnology. In Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2007, 43, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Said, E.M. Expression analysis of AtTPS1 gene coding for trehalose-6-phosphate synthase in salt stressed olive (Olea eurropaea L.). Biosci. Res. 2017, 14, 809–816. [Google Scholar]
  275. Bray, E.A. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends Plant Sci. 1997, 2, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Seki, M.; Kamei, A.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K. Molecular responses to drought, salinity and frost: Common and different paths for plant protection. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. Zhang, H.; Huang, Z.; Xie, B.; Chen, Q.; Tian, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H.; Lu, X.; Huang, D.; Huang, R. The ethylene-, jasmonate-, abscisic acid-and NaCl-responsive tomato transcription factor JERF1 modulates expression of GCC box-containing genes and salt tolerance in tobacco. Planta 2004, 220, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Yoshida, T.; Fujita, Y.; Sayama, H.; Kidokoro, S.; Maruyama, K.; Mizoi, J.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. AREB1, AREB2, and ABF3 are master transcription factors that cooperatively regulate ABRE-dependent ABA signaling involved in drought stress tolerance and require ABA for full activation. Plant J. 2010, 61, 672–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  279. Bazakos, C.; Manioudaki, M.E.; Sarropoulou, E.; Spano, T.; Kalaitzis, P. 454 pyrosequencing of olive (Olea europaea L.) transcriptome in response to salinity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Mantri, N.L.; Ford, R.; Coram, T.E.; Pang, E.C. Transcriptional profiling of chickpea genes differentially regulated in response to high-salinity, cold and drought. BMC Genom. 2007, 8, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Qing, D.J.; Lu, H.F.; Li, N.; Dong, H.T.; Dong, D.F.; Li, Y.Z. Comparative profiles of gene expression in leaves and roots of maize seedlings under conditions of salt stress and the removal of salt stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009, 50, 889–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Ehlting, J.; Provart, N.J.; Werck-Reichhart, D. Functional annotation of the Arabidopsis P450 superfamily based on large-scale co-expression analysis. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2006, 34, 1192–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Gálvez, F.J.; Baghour, M.; Hao, G.; Cagnac, O.; Rodríguez-Rosales, M.P.; Venema, K. Expression of LeNHX isoforms in response to salt stress in salt sensitive and salt tolerant tomato species. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 51, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  284. Ahmed, H.E.; Youssef, E.A.; Kord, M.A.; Qaid, E.A. Trehalose accumulation in wheat plant promotes sucrose and starch biosynthesis. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2013, 6, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Blázquez, M.A.; Santos, E.; Flores, C.L.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M.; Salinas, J.; Gancedo, C. Isolation and molecular characterization of the Arabidopsis TPS1 gene, encoding trehalose-6-phosphate synthase. Plant J. 1998, 13, 685–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Vogel, G.; Aeschbacher, R.A.; Müller, J.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A. Trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatases from Arabidopsis thaliana: Identification by functional complementation of the yeast tps2 mutant. Plant J. 1998, 13, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Leyman, B.; Van Dijck, P.; Thevelein, J.M. An unexpected plethora of trehalose biosynthesis genes in Arabidopsis thaliana. Trends Plant Sci. 2001, 6, 510–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Penna, S. Building stress tolerance through over-producing trehalose in transgenic plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2003, 8, 355–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Mousavi, S.; Mariotti, R.; Valeri, M.C.; Regni, L.; Lilli, E.; Albertini, E.; Proietti, P.; Businelli, D.; Baldoni, L. Characterization of differentially expressed genes under salt stress in olive. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 23, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Reddy, P.S.; Jogeswar, G.; Rasineni, G.K.; Maheswari, M.; Reddy, A.R.; Varshney, R.K.; Kishor, P.K. Proline over-accumulation alleviates salt stress and protects photosynthetic and antioxidant enzyme activities in transgenic sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 94, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Guan, C.; Cui, X.; Liu, H.Y.; Li, X.; Li, M.Q.; Zhang, Y.W. Proline biosynthesis enzyme genes confer salt tolerance to switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) in cooperation with polyamines metabolism. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Pakzad, R.; Goharrizi, K.J.; Riahi-Madvar, A.; Amirmahani, F.; Mortazavi, M.; Esmaeeli, L. Identification of Lepidium draba Δ 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (P5CS) and assessment of its expression under NaCl stress: P5CS identification in L. draba plant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2021, 91, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Liu, H.; Hu, M.; Wang, Q.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, Z. Role of papain-like cysteine proteases in plant development. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  294. Joaquín-Ramos, A.; Huerta-Ocampo, J.Á.; Barrera-Pacheco, A.; De León-Rodríguez, A.; Baginsky, S.; de la Rosa, A.P.B. Comparative proteomic analysis of amaranth mesophyll and bundle sheath chloroplasts and their adaptation to salt stress. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 1423–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  295. Wang, M.J.; Ding, L.; Liu, X.H.; Liu, J.X. Two B-box domain proteins, BBX28 and BBX29, regulate flowering time at low ambient temperature in Arabidopsis. Plant Mol. Biol. 2021, 106, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  296. Zhang, M.; Chen, Q.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, Q.; Fang, Y. NaCl-induced changes in vacuolar H+-ATPase expression and vacuolar membrane lipid composition of two shrub willow clones differing in their response to salinity. Plant Growth Regul. 2018, 86, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Balasubramaniam, T.; Shen, G.; Esmaeili, N.; Zhang, H. Plants’ response mechanisms to salinity stress. Plants 2023, 12, 2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Shabala, S.; Hariadi, Y.; Jacobsen, S.E. Genotypic difference in salinity tolerance in quinoa is determined by differential control of xylem Na+ loading and stomatal density. J. Plant Physiol. 2013, 170, 906–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  299. Seidel, T. The Plant V-ATPase. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 931777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  300. El Yamani, M.; Sakar, E.H.; Boussakouran, A.; Rharrabti, Y. Physiological and biochemical responses of young olive trees (Olea europaea L.) to water stress during flowering. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2019, 71, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. El Yamani, M.; Sakar, E.H.; Boussakouran, A.; Rharrabti, Y. Leaf water status, physiological behavior and biochemical mechanism involved in young olive plants under water deficit. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 261, 108906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Abd El Rahman, A.; Sharkawi, M.H. Effect of salinity and water supply on olive. Plant Soil 1968, 28, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Gucci, R.; Tattini, M.; Lombardini, L. Meccanismi di resistenza allo stress osmosalino in olivo. In Olivicoltura Mediterranea: Stato e Rpospettive della Coltura e della Ricerca; La Grafica Commerciale: Milan, Italy, 1996; pp. 305–312. [Google Scholar]
  304. Sadok, W.; Lopez, J.R.; Smith, K.P. Transpiration increases under high-temperature stress: Potential mechanisms, trade-offs and prospects for crop resilience in a warming world. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 2102–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Distribution of the olive groves in the world [7].
Figure 1. Distribution of the olive groves in the world [7].
Plants 13 02094 g001
Figure 2. Olive oil production (×103 t) by growing season. Prepared by the authors based on data from the IOC [9].
Figure 2. Olive oil production (×103 t) by growing season. Prepared by the authors based on data from the IOC [9].
Plants 13 02094 g002
Figure 3. An overview of morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of salt stress tolerance in olive trees.
Figure 3. An overview of morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of salt stress tolerance in olive trees.
Plants 13 02094 g003
Figure 4. (A) Control leaf and (B) leaves with ion accumulation. Necrosis starts at the leaf apex and progresses towards the base [127].
Figure 4. (A) Control leaf and (B) leaves with ion accumulation. Necrosis starts at the leaf apex and progresses towards the base [127].
Plants 13 02094 g004
Figure 5. Outline of the antioxidant defense system of the olive tree under salt stress.
Figure 5. Outline of the antioxidant defense system of the olive tree under salt stress.
Plants 13 02094 g005
Table 1. List of the most important cultivars of each continent [7].
Table 1. List of the most important cultivars of each continent [7].
ContinentsMain Cultivars
AfricaPicholine, Marroqui, Hacuzia, Meslala, Menara, Arbosana, Arbequina, Koroneiki, Woira, Mission, Kalamata
AmericaArbequina, Azapá, Criolla, Coratina, Barouni, Manzanilla, Ascolana, Mision, Arauco, Picus
AsiaArjosi, Barmagui, Basica, Kikkam, Kasb, Souri, Nabal Baladi, Mehravia, Muhasan, Mastoidis
EuropeArbequina, Picual, Hojiblanca, Koroneiki, Arbosana, Alentajana, Frantoio, Verdial, Picudo, Carbonella
OceaniaHardy’s, Mammoth, Fs17, Dai21, Azapa, Picual, Hojiblanca, Manzanilla, Barnea, Frantoio, Koroneiki
WorldArbequina, Arbosana, Koroneiki, Picual, Frantoio, Leccino, Hojiblanca, Verdial, Kalamata, Picholine, Alentajana, Nabal Baladi
Table 2. Continental distribution of the area of saline soils (Mha). Prepared by the authors based on data from Mukhopadhyay et al. [19], Wike et al. [23], Ivushkin et al. [24], and Kramer et al. [25].
Table 2. Continental distribution of the area of saline soils (Mha). Prepared by the authors based on data from Mukhopadhyay et al. [19], Wike et al. [23], Ivushkin et al. [24], and Kramer et al. [25].
ContinentsArea (Mha)%Main Countries
Africa80.440.86Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Lybia, Mali, Mauritania, Tunisia, Western Sahara,
America144.731.55Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, USA
Asia316.503.40China, India, Iran, Iraq, Mongolia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Europe30.700.33Norway, Spain
Oceania357.333.84Australia
World931.70100-
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

El Yamani, M.; Cordovilla, M.d.P. Tolerance Mechanisms of Olive Tree (Olea europaea) under Saline Conditions. Plants 2024, 13, 2094. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13152094

AMA Style

El Yamani M, Cordovilla MdP. Tolerance Mechanisms of Olive Tree (Olea europaea) under Saline Conditions. Plants. 2024; 13(15):2094. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13152094

Chicago/Turabian Style

El Yamani, Mohamed, and María del Pilar Cordovilla. 2024. "Tolerance Mechanisms of Olive Tree (Olea europaea) under Saline Conditions" Plants 13, no. 15: 2094. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13152094

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop