Improving Performance of Salt-Grown Crops by Exogenous Application of Plant Growth Regulators

Abstract

Soil salinity is one of the major abiotic stresses restricting plant growth and development. Application of plant growth regulators (PGRs) is a possible practical means for minimizing salinity-induced yield losses, and can be used in addition to or as an alternative to crop breeding for enhancing salinity tolerance. The PGRs auxin, cytokinin, nitric oxide, brassinosteroid, gibberellin, salicylic acid, abscisic acid, jasmonate, and ethylene have been advocated for practical use to improve crop performance and yield under saline conditions. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the effectiveness of various PGRs in ameliorating the detrimental effects of salinity on plant growth and development, and elucidates the physiological and genetic mechanisms underlying this process by linking PGRs with their downstream targets and signal transduction pathways. It is shown that, while each of these PGRs possesses an ability to alter plant ionic and redox homeostasis, the complexity of interactions between various PGRs and their involvement in numerous signaling pathways makes it difficult to establish an unequivocal causal link between PGRs and their downstream effectors mediating plants’ adaptation to salinity. The beneficial effects of PGRs are also strongly dependent on genotype, the timing of application, and the concentration used. The action spectrum of PGRs is also strongly dependent on salinity levels. Taken together, this results in a rather narrow “window” in which the beneficial effects of PGR are observed, hence limiting their practical application (especially under field conditions). It is concluded that, in the light of the above complexity, and also in the context of the cost–benefit analysis, crop breeding for salinity tolerance remains a more reliable avenue for minimizing the impact of salinity on plant growth and yield. Further progress in the field requires more studies on the underlying cell-based mechanisms of interaction between PGRs and membrane transporters mediating plant ion homeostasis.

Full text

biomolecules
Review
Improving Performance of Salt-Grown Crops by Exogenous
Application of Plant Growth Regulators
Md. Quamruzzaman 1, S. M. Nuruzzaman Manik 1, Sergey Shabala 1,2 and Meixue Zhou 1, 3, *


Citation: Quamruzzaman, M.;
Manik, S.M.N.; Shabala, S.; Zhou, M.
Improving Performance of
Salt-Grown Crops by Exogenous
Application of Plant Growth
Regulators. Biomolecules 2021,11, 788.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
biom11060788
Academic Editor: Mohamed
A. El-Esawi
Received: 12 March 2021
Accepted: 21 May 2021
Published: 24 May 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Prospect 7250, Australia;
md.quamruzzaman@utas.edu.au (M.Q.); smnuruzzaman.manik@utas.edu.au (S.M.N.M.);
sergey.shabala@utas.edu.au (S.S.)
2International Research Centre for Environmental Membrane Biology, Foshan University,
Foshan 528000, China
3College of Agronomy, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China
*Correspondence: meixue.zhou@utas.edu.au
Abstract:
Soil salinity is one of the major abiotic stresses restricting plant growth and development.
Application of plant growth regulators (PGRs) is a possible practical means for minimizing salinity-
induced yield losses, and can be used in addition to or as an alternative to crop breeding for enhancing
salinity tolerance. The PGRs auxin, cytokinin, nitric oxide, brassinosteroid, gibberellin, salicylic
acid, abscisic acid, jasmonate, and ethylene have been advocated for practical use to improve crop
performance and yield under saline conditions. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the
effectiveness of various PGRs in ameliorating the detrimental effects of salinity on plant growth and
development, and elucidates the physiological and genetic mechanisms underlying this process by
linking PGRs with their downstream targets and signal transduction pathways. It is shown that, while
each of these PGRs possesses an ability to alter plant ionic and redox homeostasis, the complexity of
interactions between various PGRs and their involvement in numerous signaling pathways makes
it difficult to establish an unequivocal causal link between PGRs and their downstream effectors
mediating plants’ adaptation to salinity. The beneficial effects of PGRs are also strongly dependent on
genotype, the timing of application, and the concentration used. The action spectrum of PGRs is also
strongly dependent on salinity levels. Taken together, this results in a rather narrow “window” in
which the beneficial effects of PGR are observed, hence limiting their practical application (especially
under field conditions). It is concluded that, in the light of the above complexity, and also in the
context of the cost–benefit analysis, crop breeding for salinity tolerance remains a more reliable
avenue for minimizing the impact of salinity on plant growth and yield. Further progress in the field
requires more studies on the underlying cell-based mechanisms of interaction between PGRs and
membrane transporters mediating plant ion homeostasis.
Keywords: plant hormone; salinity stress; PGRs; wheat; gene mechanism
1. Introduction
Salinity is one of the major abiotic stresses affecting crop plants and limiting produc-
tion worldwide [
1
,
2
]. Globally, approximately 1125 million ha of land is affected by soil
salinity [
3
]. Soil salinization is increasing at a rate of ~3 ha/min [
4
], and now becoming
a major concern for the irrigated agriculture [
1
,
5
]. Salinity stress induces a multitude of
responses in plants at various levels of plant structural organization. The three primary
constraints imposed by salinity on plants are osmotic stress, ionic disbalance/toxicity,
and oxidative stress [
1
]. Osmotic stress decreases external water potential and leads to
a reduced water uptake capacity of plants, thus affecting cell expansion growth. It also
leads to stomata closure, reducing the plant’s ability to assimilate CO
2
. The ionic stress is
caused by an excess uptake of toxic salt ions (mainly Na
+
and Cl
−
) that hamper normal
metabolic processes in plants. The accumulation of toxic Na
+
and Cl
−
is also accompanied
Biomolecules 2021,11, 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11060788 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomolecules

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 2 of 22
by a massive reduction in cytosolic K
+
, with numerous implications for a cell’s metabolic
activity and viability [
6
–
9
]. Cl
–
toxicity is less drastic compared with Na
+
, but nonetheless
can cause a significant disturbance to many physiological and biochemical processes in
sensitive species [
10
,
11
]. Salinity stress also leads to the production of excess amounts of
reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plant tissues [
12
–
14
], including superoxide anion (O
2−
),
hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
), singlet oxygen (
1
O
2
), and hydroxyl radical (OH
•
). These ROS
can severely damage the plant’s cellular structures and macro molecules like DNA, en-
zymes, and lipids [
15
–
18
]. Also, ROS are highly potent regulators of a broad range of Ca
2+
,
Na
+
, and K
+
—permeable ion channels [
19
–
21
]—thus causing a major disturbance to stress
signaling and intracellular ion homeostasis, well before damaging effects become evident.
Three major cereal crops, namely wheat, rice, and maize, are responsible for over 50%
of daily caloric uptake by the human population. All of them are classified as salt-sensitive
species and perform poorly when grown on saline soils. For example, wheat provides
about 20% of human food energy requirements and 25% of proteins consumed daily
worldwide (Wheat Initiative, www.wheatinitiative.org/, accessed on 23 May 2021). Wheat
is a salt-sensitive glycophyte [
22
], and salinity is considered to be a major soil constraint in
the Australian Wheatbelt [
23
,
24
] which results in about a 40% yield reduction [
25
], costing
Australian economy ~A$200 million per annum [26].
Two different (but potentially complementary) approaches can be used to reduce
the negative impact of salinity stress on plant growth and yield. The first one is the
development of salt-resistant cultivars via molecular or classical breeding. The second
approach is related to agronomical means, and includes inoculating seeds with halotol-
erant plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) or the application of various plant
growth regulators (PGRs) [
27
–
34
]. While genetic improvement is considered as the best
solution from a long-term perspective, no significant progress has been made in breeding
programs. This is due to the polygenic nature of tolerance, which reflects the complexity of
salt tolerance mechanisms in plant, and the lack of available genes that confer salt stress
tolerance [
35
–
37
]. Conventional breeding techniques are time-consuming and laborious,
and have met with only a limited success. With the advancement of science and technology,
molecular techniques and transgenic technology have been widely used in plant breeding
worldwide. Although transgenic technology is considered as a fast and effective method
to obtain salt-tolerant varieties, the public acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops
remains a major stumbling block in most countries [
38
–
40
]. In this context, PGPRs could
potentially minimize the detrimental effects of salinity stress on plant growth and yield
without triggering these public/governmental concerns. PGRs share the common func-
tion of regulating intrinsic hormone levels within plants by modulating signaling within
various hormone transduction pathways, and are widely available and easy to apply to
crops
[41,42]
. However, the effectiveness of PGPRs depends upon their interaction with
host plant and soil environment. Sometimes plant growth-promoting bacteria has exhibited
harmful effects on the growth and development of plants [
43
], and is often considered
to be “unsafe” for human and animal health [
44
]. Also, PGRs cross-talk with each other
and may act synergistically or antagonistically to regulate plant growth, development,
and defense responses, generally by inducing gene expression [
45
]. This complexity may
result in a certain level of unpredictability and negate expected beneficial effects. The main
aim of this review was to summarize the bulk of the reported data on the use of PGRs
for improving performance of plants grown on salt-affected lands, revealing underlying
cellular mechanisms and downstream targets, and critically assessing the applicability of
PGR for sustainable crop production under conditions of soil salinity.
2. Plant Growth Regulators
Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are defined as synthetic or naturally occurring or-
ganic compounds that influence biological process in higher plants at very low concen-
trations [
41
]. PGRs can increase or decrease growth and development by altering their
normal biological processes [
41
,
46
,
47
]. When these compounds occur naturally inside the

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 3 of 22
plant they are known as phytohormones, but when applied exogenously they are called
PGRs [
48
]. PGRs act as signaling agents, allowing plants to maintain plasticity during
growth and development, and are hence considered as principal factors in responses of
plants to biotic and abiotic stresses [
49
,
50
]. PGRs play a significant role in alleviating
salt stress via a broad range of physiological and developmental alterations [
51
–
53
]. In
broad terms, PGRs are involved in increasing the physiological availability of water and
essential nutrients, while helping plants reduce toxic salt load [
54
]. They also have a major
impact on the antioxidant enzyme activities in plants [
55
–
62
]. PGRs induce salt tolerance
by increasing the activity of ROS scavenging enzymes to maintain the ROS at a nontoxic
level under stress conditions [
63
,
64
]. The ameliorating ability of PGRs depends on environ-
mental factors that affect their absorption, the concentration at which they are applied, and
the physiological state of the plant [
65
–
67
]. PGRs are classified into a number of distinct
classes, such as auxins (Aux), cytokinins (CKs), nitric oxide (NO), brassinosteroids (BRs),
gibberellins (GAs), salicylic acid (SA), abscisic acid (ABA), jasmonates (JAs), and ethylene.
The following sections examine the efficiency and modes of ameliorating the effects those
PGRs have on how plants respond to salinity stress.
3. Effects of Plant Growth Regulators on Plant Performance under Saline Conditions
3.1. Auxins
Auxin is a widely used plant growth regulator of low molecular weight with an
aromatic ring structure [
68
]. Auxin is produced in growing shoot tips and transported
down the main stem via the polar auxin transport (PAT) mechanism [
69
]. It is involved
in cell division and elongation, organogenesis, and apical dominance [
70
–
74
]. Auxin
stimulates cell elongation via increasing wall extensibility and participates in the regulation
of cell wall properties by inducing wall loosening [
75
]. Auxins also stimulate H
+
–ATPase
operation, creating a driving force for inorganic ion uptake that contributes to increased
cell turgor [76,77].
Salt stress affects the growth of both primary and lateral roots [
78
–
80
]. The develop-
mental plasticity of the plant root under saline conditions is regulated by auxin [
81
], and the
inhibition of root growth is associated with reduced auxin accumulation [
82
], most likely
via the PAT mechanism [
83
]. Slowing root growth might be an adaptive mechanism for
plants surviving in salt environments. Exogenous application of auxin leads to an increase
in root growth under saline conditions in several species [
82
,
84
]. However, this increase in
root growth comes with a carbon cost, and therefore, could be counterproductive under
conditions of severe salinities, when (limited) plant ATP pull is required for a range of
defense responses. Lateral root development is also an important survival strategy for plant
to avoid damage in unfavorable environmental conditions, including salt stress [
85
–
87
].
Plants remodel their root architecture by altering auxin accumulation and its redistribution
under salt stress conditions [88–91].
Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) is an important member of auxin family of plant hor-
mones [
92
,
93
]. Stress conditions lead to a significant reduction in IAA concentrations in
rice, maize, tomato, and wheat plants [
94
–
97
]. This reduction of free IAA concentration
in crop is cultivar- or plant organ-dependent. For example, the free IAA concentration
remained constant in the roots of a salt-tolerant maize hybrid line, but significantly de-
creased in the roots of a salt-sensitive line, while IAA concentration in leaves remained
constant in both lines [
95
]. Therefore, the reduction in plant growth and development
under stress conditions could be an outcome of altered auxin accumulation and redistri-
bution. Consistent with this, some studies suggested that exogenous application of Aux
may alleviate salinity stress in many crops, including wheat [
45
,
84
,
98
,
99
]. For example,
foliar spraying of 2 mM IAA to salt-grown maize plants increased kernel yield by ~9%,
while a combination of IAA spray and a basal application of inorganic nutrients (K and P)
improved yield by 20% under 10 dS m
−1
saline conditions [
98
]. In rice, a foliar spray of
IAA (50 mL per pot) at the reproductive stage increased grain yield by ~4% and ~46% in
salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive cultivars, respectively, under 6 dS m
−1
saline conditions [
99
].

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 4 of 22
In the case of wheat, seed primed with 100, 150, and 200 mg L
−1
of different synthetic
auxins, namely 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D); 2,4,5-trichlorophe-noxyacetic acid
(2,4,5-T); and
α
-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) improved the performance of salt-grown
plants under both controlled environment and field conditions. However, the effect was
cultivar-, priming agent-, and concentration-dependent, questioning the direct causal link
between PGR application and observed responses. Seeds primed with 150 mg L
−1
NAA
increased plant grain yield by ~36% and ~27% in salt-sensitive and salt-tolerant wheat
varieties, respectively, when grown under 150 mM saline conditions [
100
]. The use of
IAA-producing bacteria also lead to an improvement of wheat performance under saline
conditions [101].
One of the modes of action for the auxin-driven decrease in the extent of salt damage
on plant performance is increasing the activities of auxin-responsive genes that increase
the plant’s water retention capacity and decrease H
2
O
2
accumulation [
45
,
102
]. The auxin
responsive TaIAA gene family exhibits differential expression during the absorption of
inorganic salts in wheat roots [
103
], and an auxin responsive gene small auxin-upregulated
RNAs TaSAUR75 in wheat regulates plant growth and development under saline condi-
tions by preventing H
2
O
2
accumulation under salt stress [
102
]. The salt-responsive gene
TaEXPB23 is downregulated by the exogenous application of IAA, and overexpression of
TaEXPB23 conferred salt stress tolerance by decreasing osmotic potential and enhancing
the water retention ability in transgenic tobacco [45].
3.2. Cytokinins
Cytokinins (CKs) are an important class of phytohormones that promote cell division
in the roots and shoots of plants. There are two types of CKs: the adenine type and the
phenylurea type [
104
]. To date, phenylurea CKs have not been found in plants [
105
]. The
adenine-type plant hormones are the main form and classified as isopentenyladenine
(iP), trans-zeatin (tZ) and cis-zeatin (cZ), and dihydrozeatin and its riboside [
106
,
107
].
The iP-type cytokinin in the phloem is transferred from aerial parts of the plant to the
root to maintain vascular structure in the root meristem [
108
]. The tZ-type cytokinin is
transferred from the root to aerial parts of the plant through the xylem to regulate shoot
growth [
109
]. As a result of these redistributions, CKs participate in various biochemical
and physiological processes, such as cell division and leaf senescence, thus controlling
the root/shoot ratio. The long-distant CK transport is also essential for plant responses to
abiotic stresses, including salt [110,111] (Figure 1).
CK has both a positive and negative regulatory role in alleviating the detrimental
effects of salinity stress. For example, cytokinin deficiency leads to enhanced salinity
tolerance in Physcomitrella patens and Arabidopsis [
111
–
113
], and contributed to yield
improvement in many crops [
114
]. Cytokinin oxidase (CKX) is the prime enzyme in-
volved in CK metabolism, which can effectively reduce the concentration of CK in
plants. The overexpression of CKX significantly influences hyposensitivity to salt stress in
Physcomitrella patens [
111
,
112
]. Regulation of isopentenyltransferase (IPT) genes under con-
ditions of salinity stress also reduces CK content in Arabidopsis and enhances its tolerance to
salinity [
112
,
115
,
116
]. On the other hand, overproduction of CKs by inducible expression
of IPT8 gene leads to reduced adaptive ability in Arabidopsis. The excess production of
CKs decreases transcript levels of ROS scavenging enzymes, thus leading to increased
ROS production that correlates with sensitivity to salt stress [
113
]. In contrast to the above
negative effects of CKs, other studies have indicated a beneficial role of CK for plant
performance under salinity stress. The application of CKX inhibitor INCYDE protected the
photosynthetic apparatus and increased the production of flowers in tomato plants [
117
].
The downregulation of CKX2 under saline stress condition significantly increased CK
concentration and reduced yield penalty in rice [
118
,
119
]. AGO2 (argonaute RISC catalytic
component 2) plays a key role in improving salinity tolerance by changing the level of CKs
and enhancing grain yield in rice [
120
]. These contradictory reports question the practical
application of CKs, and suggest concentration- and tissue-specific modes of action.

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 5 of 22
Published papers indicate that salt stress conditions are often associated with a de-
crease in CK concentration in crops like rice and wheat. CK spraying leads to an increase in
grain yield under saline conditions [
121
]. Exogenous CKs may increase plant antioxidant
enzymes activity and reduce ROS load. Kinetin (adenine-type CKs) spraying at a rate
of 10 mg L
−1
ameliorated the deleterious effects of salinity by reducing the uptake of
toxic ions Na
+
and Cl
−
and promoting the uptake of K
+
in wheat seedlings. Seed primed
with different concentrations of synthetic cytokinins (kinetin and benzylaminopurine)
increased grain yield by up to 52%, but in a strong cultivar- and concentration-dependent
manner [60].
CKs mainly promote physiological responses through the regulation of gene expres-
sion [
122
,
123
], but little information is available about the molecular function of cytokinin
under salt stress conditions. In Arabidopsis, CRF6 (cytokinin response factor 6) represses
cytokinin-associated genes during oxidative stress [
124
]. A salt-inducible novel wheat
TaCKX3 (cytokinin oxidase/dehydrogenase) gene is located on chromosome 7B [
125
], and
silencing of the TaCKX1 gene increased grain yield in wheat [
126
]. The expression of the
high-affinity potassium transporter AtHKT1.1, which controls xylem Na
+
loading, was
repressed by CK treatment in Arabidopsis [
127
]. The genes involved in ROS breakdown
are also greatly affected in cytokinin-deficient mutant ipt1,3,5,7 [
113
]. CKs help induce cy-
tokinin response factors (CRFs) in the ERF-VI subfamily; CRFs positively regulate osmotic
stress tolerance [
128
,
129
]. However, other reports have suggested that overproduction
of CK resulted in a negative effect in plants by modulating stress-responsive gene ex-
pression. For example, overexpression of cytokinin biosynthetic gene AtIPT8 (adenosine
phosphate–isopentenyl transferase 8) significantly inhibits true leaf emergence and primary
root growth under salt stress conditions. It is also associated with increasing ROS produc-
tion, decreasing survival rates, and chlorophyll content, which lead to reduced salinity
tolerance [
113
]. These pleiotropic effects question the practicalities of CK application and
suggest that balancing CK levels is essential for adapting plants to salt conditions.
Figure 1.
Effect of cytokinin on salt stress tolerance in plants (based on
¶
[
115
,
130
],
·
[
131
],
¸[127,132], ¹[133], º[134], and »[128,129]).
3.3. Nitric Oxide
Nitric oxide (NO) is a gaseous free radical that acts as a signaling molecule. NO
synthesis in plants is mainly carried out by L-arginine-dependent, nitric oxide synthase-
like activity and nitrate reductase (NR)-catalyzed reduction of nitrite (NO
2−
) [
135
–
138
].
It is widely known as a “jack-of-all-trades” in stress responses [
139
,
140
]. Exogenous
application of NO enables plant protection against various abiotic stresses, including
salinity
[141–144]
. For example, exogenous NO treatment increases K
+
concentration and
decreases Na
+
concentration in salt-grown plants, thus maintaining an optimal K/Na

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 6 of 22
ratio that is critical for plant’s operation [
145
]. NO alleviates osmotic stress by scavenging
reactive oxygen species through increased antioxidant enzyme activity [
141
,
146
–
148
] and
glucose-mediated repression of photosynthesis [
148
]. NO protects the mitochondria from
oxidative damage by increasing ATP synthesis, and seed priming with NO increases wheat
grain yield by up to 22% under saline conditions [
147
]. NO also significantly modulates
both H
+
–ATPase and H
+
–PPase (H
+
–pyrophosphatase) activities, thus conferring salinity
tolerance in plants [
149
]. These results suggest that application of exogenous NO could
potentially improve crop growth and development under salt stress conditions.
Despite the above beneficial reports, the practical application of NO in ameliorating
the detrimental effects of salinity is questionable for several reasons. First, similar to the
cytosolic Ca
2+
signaling, stress-induced elevation in NO levels is usually transient and
requires a return to the basal level. Second, NO is involved in multiple signaling pathways,
so alteration in basal NO level caused by its exogenous application may interfere with
some of them. Last but not least, the biological lifetime of an NO molecule is relatively
short (millisecond range [
150
]), questioning its ability to sustain long-term control of
transporters activity.
3.4. Gibberellins
Gibberellins belongs to a large group of tetracyclic diterpenoid carboxylic acid deriva-
tives which have various physiological functions, such as stimulating organ growth through
enhancement of cell division and cell elongation [
151
,
152
]. Gibberellic acid (GA) is the
most common form of gibberellin [
153
–
155
]. The biosynthesis of GA is regulated by both
developmental and environmental stimuli [
156
]. Salinity stress reduces endogenous GA
content, resulting in plant’s hypersensitivity to salt [157,158].
DELLA family protein is a major GA-negative regulator that may be involved in dif-
ferent environmental and hormonal signaling. For example, DELLA protein SLR1 plays a
role in inhibiting plant growth by inhibiting GA signaling under salt stress conditions [
159
].
Overexpression of some other GA catabolism-related genes like OsGA2ox5 [
160
] and Os-
MYB91 [
161
] in rice and AtGA2ox7 [
162
] in Arabidopsis reduces growth and shows an
enhanced tolerance to salt stress compared to wild plants. Again, OsCYP71D8L is a poten-
tial GA-deactivating protein that plays a significant role in balancing the growth process
and stress responses, and leads to enhanced tolerance to salt stress in rice [
163
]. These
results suggest that the reduction of GA signaling under salt stress conditions is directly
associated with salt tolerance in plants. On the other hand, some papers have reported that
exogenous application of GA had a positive effect on salt stress tolerance in many crops. In
this context, increasing lipid biosynthesis is one of the essential mechanisms conferring
salinity stress tolerance in plants. This process is disturbed by salinity, but the exogenous
application of GA leads to up-regulation of chloroplast lipid biosynthesis, which is directly
associated with increasing salt stress tolerance in rice [
164
]. Salt stress also reduces enzyme
activities, as well as hampering the nutritional balance in plants. A foliar spray of 0.1 mM
GA significantly alleviates the damaging effect of salt and increases growth and enzymatic
activities in okra [
165
]. Another potential target of GA are expansins, which determine
extensibility and mechanical properties of cell walls. The TaEXPB23 transcript expression
in wheat was upregulated by salt stress but downregulated by exogenous GA application,
and constitutive overexpression of TaEXPB23 enhanced salt stress tolerance in transgenic
tobacco by enhancing water retention ability and decreasing osmotic potential [45].
3.5. Brassinosteroids
Brassinosteroids are primarily polyhydroxylated, sterol-derived plant growth regula-
tors. They are ubiquitous in all plant species, and are implicated in a wide range of growth
and developmental processes in various crop plants [
166
–
170
]. BRs are involved in the
regulation of multiple physiological, developmental, and biochemical processes, including
seed germination, cell division and elongation, differentiation of vascular tissues, devel-
opment of root and shoots, senescence, reproduction, and photomorphogenesis. BRs are

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 7 of 22
also essential for plant adaptation to various abiotic and biotic stresses [
166
,
171
,
172
]. BRs
interact with other hormones to regulate these types of activities in plants [
169
]. The most
common, and thus best studied, are 24-Epibrassinolide (24-EBL) and 28-homobrassinolide
(28-HBL) [
173
,
174
]; studies of these have included their role in mitigating salt stress in
plants [175,176].
A foliar spraying of EBL ~10
−8
M or seed soaking with ~10
−6
M scavenged excessive
ROS through the enhancement of antioxidant enzyme activities and modified the activity
of proline metabolism, thus improving salinity stress tolerance in wheat [
177
]. Exogenous
5
µ
M EBL treatment resulted in a ~42% increase in pod yield in salt-grown bean plants [
178
],
and foliar spray of 0.125 mg L−1BR led to 18–35% increase in seed yield in peas [179].
The molecular mechanisms explaining how BRs control stress responses and reg-
ulate stress-responsive gene expression in plants are largely unknown [
180
–
183
]. BRs
bind to a small family of leucine-rich repeat receptor kinases (BRI1) at the cell surface,
thereby initiating an intracellular signal transduction cascade that results in altered expres-
sion of hundreds of genes that are implicated for diverse functions, including increased
adaptation to various stresses [
184
]. For example, enhancing BR signaling activity in
Arabidopsis led to increased salt stress tolerance, but BR-defective mutants showed sen-
sitivity to salt stress [
181
]. The transcript levels of the brassinosteroid receptor (OsBRI1)
were greatly influenced by EBL and its combination with salt stress in rice. On the other
hand, the salt responsive gene (SalT) was negligibly expressed by the combination of salt
and EBL [
185
]. The Arabidopsis ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme, UBC32, a stress-induced
functional ubiquitin conjugation enzyme, is associated with endoplasmic reticulum protein
degradation (ERAD) and brassinosteroid mediated growth promotion, as well as salt stress
tolerance [
186
]. Brassinosteroids may also enhance abiotic stress tolerance through their
interaction with other plant hormones, such as ABA [
187
–
189
]. The crosstalk between
BR and ABA occurs after BR perception, but at or before BIN2, so a large portion of BR
responsive genes are also regulated by ABA [
190
]. The specific details of this interaction
need to be investigated in future studies.
3.6. Salicylic Acid
Salicylic acid is a phenolic compound and important endogenous growth regulator
that participates in the regulation of biotic and abiotic stress responses in plants [
191
–
193
].
SA has been shown to affect membrane permeability, bud growth, growth rate, stomatal
closure, mitochondrial respiration, material transfer, photosynthesis, and ion absorption.
Because of this, SA plays an essential role in mediating plants’ adaptive responses to salin-
ity [
52
,
194
], and controls membrane permeability (hence, ion uptake and transport) [
195
].
It also maintains redox homeostasis in cells under salt stress conditions [
196
–
198
] (Figure 2).
External application of SA was found to improve tolerance to salt stress in wheat plants as a
result of the upregulation of transcript levels of GPX1,GPX2,DHAR,GR,GST1,GST2,MD-
HAR, and GS, and further enhancement in the enzyme activities of AsA-GSH cycle [
199
].
SA also reduces the extent of oxidative damage caused by salt stress by enhancing the ac-
tivities of peroxidase and catalase, as well as the production of osmoprotectant compounds,
such as proline, betaine and glycine [
193
,
200
]. SA regulates the transcript levels of the
genes encoding ASA–GSH cycle enzymes, such as DHAR (dehydroascorbate reductase),
GPX (glutathione peroxidase), GR (glutathione reductase), GST (glutathione-S-transferase),
MDHAR (monodehydroascorbate reductase), and GS (glutathione synthetase) [
199
]. SA
treatment also improves the K+/Na+ratio in salt-grown plants [59,201].
The effectiveness of exogenous SA at mitigating salt stress damage depends on crops
and the concentration of NaCl in the growing media. For example, it can reduce the
negative effect of salt stress when plants are exposed to moderate stress (0.3% and 0.6%
NaCl), but cannot counteract severe salt stress (0.9%) in Caryophyllaceae [
202
]. Both
arial spraying and seed priming with 1 mM SA have improved grain yield of wheat and
pearl millet by ~13–14% [
203
]. The effectiveness of SA also varies with the concentration
of endogenous or exogenous SA. The higher accumulation of endogenous SA led to

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 8 of 22
hypersensitivity to NaCl [
204
–
206
], while activating the SA signaling pathway significantly
improves salinity tolerance. For example, overexpression of SA receptors (MhNPR1 or
AtNPR1) enhanced tolerance to salt/osmotic and oxidative stress by increasing SA signaling
in tobacco [
207
,
208
]. On the other hand, a lack of SA receptor enhanced salt sensitivity in
plants [
209
]. Similarly, exogenous application of three levels of SA (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mM) as
a priming agent was evaluated in mung bean grown under different salt concentrations
(3, 6, and 9 dS m
−1
). In most of the cases, a moderate concentration (1 mM SA) gave
the best result in terms of ion content, gas exchange parameters, and chlorophyll content
in leaves [
210
]. In Arabidopsis, the inhibitory effect of high salinity was exaggerated by
>100
µ
M SA treatments, while plants benefited from <50
µ
M treatment during the seed
germination [211].
Figure 2.
Effect of salicylic acid on salt stress tolerance in plants (based on
¶
[
212
],
·
[
213
],
¸
[
214
,
215
],
¹[52], º[193,200], »[52,207], and ¼[207]).
3.7. Abscisic Acid
Abscisic acid is known as a stress hormone that mediates different types of biological
and non-biological stress in plants [
216
–
218
]. ABA is synthesized in all de novo plant parts
such as roots, flowers, leaves, and stems [
219
]. As an endogenous signaling molecules
ABA enables plants’ survival under adverse environmental conditions, including salin-
ity [220,221] (Figure 3).
During salt stress conditions, endogenous levels of ABA increase, which enhances
plant adaptation to salinity by limiting ROS accumulation [
222
]. Higher accumulation
of ABA also induces stomata closure, thus reducing transpiration for better water saving
under osmotic stress conditions caused by salinity [
223
,
224
]. The accumulation of ABA
occurs more rapidly in roots than leaves [
95
,
225
], and biosynthesis of ABA is associated
with lateral root development in plants under salt stress conditions. This process is believed
to be related to ABA regulation of auxin distribution under NaCl treatment. Interestingly,
ABA biosynthesis inhibitor fluridone and an ABA biosynthesis mutant (vp14) successfully
rescued the Arabidopsis phenotype under saline conditions [
226
]. Exogenous application
of ABA increases the number of lateral roots in the ABA receptor mutants (pyl8 and pyl9)
in Arabidopsis, thus conferring to the plants a tolerance to salt [
227
]. These results indicate
that the activation of ABA signaling displays enhanced salinity tolerance in crops and is
triggered by an external application of ABA.
In wheat, ABA reduces salt stress damage by regulating proline content [
228
], and also
by reducing the ROS levels in salt-grown plants [
229
]. Seed priming with ABA decreases
Na
+
content and increased K
+
content in flag leaves, leading to increased number of grains
per spike and grain yield of wheat under saline conditions, with up to 49% yield increase

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 9 of 22
being reported [
230
]. In rice, exogenous application of 100
µ
M ABA solutions has improved
plant performance by increasing OsP5CS1 and OsP5CR gene expression, which triggered
proline accumulation, although the effect was varietal-dependent [
231
]. In wheat, the
spraying of a moderate concentration of ABA (50
µ
mol
·
L
−1
) improved salt tolerance, while
a higher concentration (100
µ
mol
·
L
−1
) had no significant impact [
232
]. Sorghum leaves
were fed with an exogenous ABA to control shoot Na
+
concentration and improve plant
growth. The growth enhancement and lower Na+content in shoots occur at a lower ABA
concentration (
≈
10 mmol m
−3
) than a higher ABA concentration (
≈
40 mmol m
−3
or above)
under 150 mol m
−3
NaCl treatment. A higher dose of ABA is needed to adapt plants to
treatment with a lethal dose of NaCl (300 mol m
−3
). It is known that ABA acts by inducing
transitional stomata closure to reduce transpiration and increase water use efficiency, thus
lowering transpiration; this probably plays a significant role in reducing transporting Na
+
from root to shoot [
233
]. In potatoes, exogenous application of ABA improves stomatal
conductance and leaf relative water content under saline conditions, but the effect varies
with genotype and method of ABA application, suggesting external ABA control over
stomata functioning and better water saving under saline conditions [234].
Wheat LEA (late embryogenesis abundant) protein DHN-5, induced by salt and
abscisic acid, can confer salt and osmotic stress tolerance, while Dhn-5 transgenic plants
exhibit higher germination rates and leaf area, as well as better growth. The above salinity
tolerance of the transgenic plant could be due to higher K
+
accumulation in leaves and
osmotic adjustment developed by active accumulation of proline [
235
]. In another study, a
new member of the CIPK (calcineurin B-like protein-interacting protein kinase) gene family
(TaCIPK29) has been identified in wheat. The TaCIPK29 transcription level increased after
the treatment of ABA and NaCl. TaCIPK29 transgenic plant shows higher K
+
/Na
+
ratio
and increased activity of peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) under salt stress [
236
]. A
novel, ABA-inducible TaSC gene was cloned from a salt-tolerant wheat mutant, RH8706-
49 [
237
], that operated in a CDPK pathway, enhancing intercellular K
+
/Na
+
ratio and
chloroplast function. Exogenous ABA treatment also promoted early salt stress-responding
genes WESR1 and WESR2 in wheat [
238
]. A basic helix-loop-helix wheat gene (TabHLH1)
mediates plant adaptation to osmotic stresses. This gene is associated with promoting
stomata closure and increasing biomass production under salt and ABA treatment. The
overexpression of TabHLH1 enhances leaf water retention capacity in transgenic tobacco,
indicating better water saving to adapt under saline conditions [239].
Figure 3.
Effect of abscisic acid on salt stress tolerance in plants (based on
¶
[
240
],
·
[
223
],
¸
[
241
],
¹[236], º[231], and »[239]).

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 10 of 22
While exogenous modulation of ABA levels in plants comes with improved water
use efficiency (WUE), the resultant stomata closure may compromise the plant’s ability
to assimilate CO
2
(hence, biomass gain). This calls into question the long-term efficacy of
such approaches for field-grown crops exposed to salinity.
3.8. Jasmonates
Another important set of PGRs are the jasmonates. Jasmonic acid (JA) and its methyl
ester (MeJ) are known as jasmonates, and control a wide range of plant growth and
developmental activities, as well as adaptive plant responses to a range of biotic and
abiotic stressors, including salinity [
242
,
243
]. The biological activities of JA are significantly
increased when plants are exposed to excess levels of salt [
244
], with stronger responses
from salt-tolerant cultivars. This has prompted a suggestion to use jasmonic acid content
as a proxy for salinity tolerance in plants [
245
–
247
]. Activation of the JA signaling pathway
increases the accumulation of JA and increases plant salinity tolerance [
248
]. Consistent
with this, the JA receptor mutant is associated with greater cell elongation under saline
conditions to confer salinity tolerance [
249
]. Exogenous application of JA alleviates the
toxic effects of salt by maintaining ion homeostasis, increasing ROS scavenging enzymatic
activities, and improving stomatal functioning.
In wheat, exogenous 2 mM JA treatment alleviated salt stress by enhancing the
activities and transcript levels of antioxidant enzymes, such as CAT, SOD, and APX. It also
boosted the content of reduced glutathione (GSH) and carotenoids, thus decreasing the
peroxidation of lipids [
57
]. Foliar JA sprays are beneficial for improving the grain yield of
salt-grown soybeans [
250
]. The effectiveness of JA depends on its concentration and the
level of salinity in the growing media [251].
JA induces biological and non-biological stress responses through the jasmonate sig-
naling pathway [
252
]. For example, a salinity-responsive bread wheat gene TaAOC1 was
constitutively expressed in both bread wheat and Arabidopsis, and was upregulated by
exogenously supplied JA and ABA. The expression of TaAOC1 in both Arabidopsis and
wheat restricted root growth, but enhanced salt tolerance and JA content by increasing SOD
activity, indicating that JA was involved in the orchestration of salt stress response and de-
velopmental processes [
248
]. Other studies have shown that TaAOC1 and TaOPR1 [
16
,
253
]
are the two genes that provide salt tolerance via both JA- and ABA-dependent pathways
to promote expression of MYC2, a crucial component of abiotic stress response-signaling
pathway [
254
]. Large-scale transcriptomic studies have shown that some JA-biosynthesis
genes (e.g., AOC1, AOC2, AOS, LOX3 and OPR3) are up-regulated in roots under salt
stress [
255
–
258
]. These findings suggest that JA signaling pathway is activated by salt stress
and triggers an array of physiological and growth changes in plants. The TIFY gene family
is regulated by salt and JA treatment, and transgenic lines over-expressing TdTIFY11a
showed higher germination and growth rates under high-salinity conditions, indicating
that it acts as jasmonic acid signaling [
259
]. A salt-responsive wheat gene TaEXPB23,
associated with enhanced water retention ability and decreased osmotic potential, was
upregulated by JA in transgenic tobacco [45].
3.9. Ethylene
Ethylene is a gaseous signaling molecule known as a stress-responsive hormone
in plants [
52
,
260
]. It regulates a broad array of physiological and developmental re-
sponses [
261
,
262
] by cross-talking with other signaling molecules [
263
,
264
]. The func-
tional effectiveness of ethylene depends on the sensitivity of plants to the hormone and
its concentration in the cell [
265
–
268
]. Salt stress conditions cause a rapid increase of
ethylene and its direct precursor ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid) production
inside the cell [
269
,
270
]. Higher ethylene production results in salt-sensitive phenotypes in
many plants, such as rice, Arabidopsis, pepper, lettuce, spinach, and beetroot [
269
,
271
,
272
].
However, other studies have shown that the overproduction of endogenous ethylene
or exogenous treatment of ethylene-releasing compounds, such as ethephon or ethylene

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 11 of 22
precursors like ACC, may lead to increased salinity stress [
273
–
276
]. These results sug-
gest that the effectiveness of ethylene in mitigating plant responses to salinity is crop-
and genotypic-specific, and is controlled by the concentration of ethylene in a specific
cellular compartment.
Similar to other PGRs, ethylene modulates salinity tolerance by maintaining tissue
Na
+
/K
+
homeostasis and inducing the antioxidant defense system [
277
–
279
]. Consis-
tent with this, exogenous application of an ethylene-releasing compound significantly
improves salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis. Exogenous 10
µ
M ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-
1-carboxylic acid), an ethylene precursor, suppressed K
+
loss and enhanced Na
+
extrusion
from the root, thus maintaining K
+
/Na
+
homeostasis during short-term NaCl treatment
in Arabidopsis [
280
]. While exogenous 30
µ
M ethephon (another ethylene-releasing agent)
confers salt stress tolerance by increasing K
+
ion content in shoots and roots rather than
decreasing Na
+
content in Arabidopsis, it also recovers salt-induced reductions in root
growth [
273
]. In wheat, seed germination, as well as root and shoot length are significantly
improved by different concentrations of ethephon under 100 mM NaCl treatment [281].
Ethylene response factors (ERFs) are key regulators in abiotic stress tolerance, includ-
ing salinity. The transcription of wheat ERF gene (TaERF1) is induced by salinity, and
overexpression of this gene activates stress-related genes that eventually increase salt stress
tolerance in transgenic plants [
282
]. The seedlings of the TaERF3-overexpressing transgenic
lines exhibit significantly enhanced tolerance to both drought and salt stresses compared
to untransformed wheat [
283
]. Overexpression of an ethylene-responsive transcription
factor (TdSHN1) from durum wheat resulted in the development of a thicker cuticle and
lower stomatal density, thus reducing water loss in transgenic tobacco [
284
]. Transcripts
of the lipid transfer protein gene (TaLTP1) were increased by salt and ethephon treatment
in wheat [
285
]. LTPs enhance cell membrane integrity and ROS scavenging in transgenic
potatoes [
286
]. They also result in reduced Na
+
accumulation in transgenic tobacco [
287
].
A wheat aquaporin gene TaAQP8 conferred salt stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco
by increasing the K
+
/Na
+
ratio and Ca
2+
content, and by reducing membrane damage
and H
2
O
2
accumulation [
288
]. Its transcript levels were induced by both ethylene and
NaCl. Ethylene also induces many early response genes that are essential for ribosomal
protein activation, chaperoning synthesis, ROS scavenging, and carbohydrate metabolites
pathway [289].
4. Summary and Recommendations
When exposed to saline stress, plants display retarded growth and development and
yield losses, and employ a range of mechanisms to deal with various constraints imposed
by saline soils. Plant hormones play an important role in this process. Using exogenously
applied PGRs remains a highly attractive option to plant growers, as a cost-effective method
to induce salt tolerance genes and assist plants in adapting to hostile salinity conditions.
However, the effectiveness of PGRs depends on the level of salt stress, genotype, timing,
and methods of applications, as well as PGR concentrations. The issue is also complicated
by the facts that plant hormones are involved in numerous developmental and adaptive
responses (not only those related to salinity), and hormonal signaling pathways have a
very significant overlap. Thus, elevation in the basal level of one of the PGRs could result in
a major disturbance to some other signaling pathways, with pleiotropic effects for growth,
development, and adaptation. This is specifically true for PGRs that modulate endogenous
ROS and NO levels. The practical applicability of PGRs should also be considered in
technological and economic contexts. Root treatment with PGRs reported in many papers
is appropriate for laboratory-based studies, but has no place in the field. The aerial PGR
sprays are more practical, but require significant technological developments (e.g., the use
of surface surfactants, timing of spray application, etc.). The overall effects of PGR sprays
will also be strongly dependent on environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, time
of the day), as their penetration into the leaf will be largely determined by the extent of
the stomata opening. The cost–benefit analysis of the efficacy of PGR ariel sprays should

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 12 of 22
also be taken into account. We would like to illustrate the latter point by one simple
example. In Yusuf et al. [
177
], the authors reported an 18% to 35% increase in seed yield
in salt-grown peas, using a foliar spray of 0.125 mg L
−1
of 24-epibrassinolide (EBL). The
current cost of 10 mg of EBL from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich Pty Ltd., NSW, Australia)
is $588, and will be sufficient to make only 80 L of solution. The typical field rate of aerial
spray application is 450 L ha
−1
[
290
], so the cost of spraying of 1 ha will be about $3300
(EBL only). At the same time, the “target benchmark” for pea production in Australia is
8 tons ha−1
[
291
], with the commodity price being around $1000 per tonne in 2019 [
292
].
Thus, even a 30% increase in yield following EBL application will only result in a benefit of
$2400 ha
−1
, which is clearly not enough to cover the cost of EBL application. The same logic
is applicable to all other PGRs. Thus, all above beneficial reports of PGR application need to
be taken with a “pinch of skepticism” and critically evaluated for their economic rationale.
In this context, we believe that future progress in the field may be achieved not
by exogenous application of PGRs, but rather by understanding a causal link between
PGRs and their downstream effectors mediating plants’ adaptation to salinity, and then
incorporating these findings into a variety of plants via molecular breeding. This task,
however, remains a great challenge, and can be only resolved by moving from whole-
plant studies (employed by 95% of published papers) to more in-depth studies at the
cellular level, using a modern range of biophysical and imaging techniques that allow
quantification of the operation of key transport systems conferring plant ionic and oxidative
homeostasis under stress conditions.
Author Contributions:
Writing—original draft preparation, M.Q. and S.M.N.M.; writing—critical
revision, M.Z. and S.S.; data analysis and editing, M.Z. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
of Australia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Zhao, C.; Zhang, H.; Song, C.; Zhu, J.-K.; Shabala, S. Mechanisms of plant responses and adaptation to soil salinity. Innovation
2020,1, 100017.
2. Rengasamy, P. World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot. 2006,57, 1017–1023. [PubMed]
3.
Hossain, M.S. Present scenario of global salt affected soils, its management and importance of salinity research. Int. Res. J. Biol.
Sci. 2019,1, 1–3.
4. Shabala, S.; Bose, J.; Hedrich, R. Salt bladders: Do they matter? Trends Plant Sci 2014,19, 687–691. [PubMed]
5. Munns, R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002,25, 239–250.
6.
Wu, H.; Zhang, X.; Giraldo, J.P.; Shabala, S. It is not all about sodium: Revealing tissue specificity and signalling roles of potassium
in plant responses to salt stress. Plant Soil 2018,431, 1–17.
7.
Shabala, L.; Zhang, J.; Pottosin, I.; Bose, J.; Zhu, M.; Fuglsang, A.T.; Velarde-Buendia, A.; Massart, A.; Hill, C.B.; Roessner, U.; et al.
Cell-type-specific H+-ATPase activity in root tissues enables K
+
retention and mediates acclimation of barley (Hordeum vulgare) to
salinity stress. Plant Physiol. 2016,172, 2445–2458.
8.
Shabala, S. Salinity and programmed cell death: Unravelling mechanisms for ion specific signalling. J. Exp. Bot.
2009
,60, 709–712.
9.
Rubio, F.; Nieves-Cordones, M.; Horie, T.; Shabala, S. Doing ‘business as usual’comes with a cost: Evaluating energy cost of
maintaining plant intracellular K+ homeostasis under saline conditions. N. Phytol. 2020,225, 1097–1104.
10.
Bazihizina, N.; Colmer, T.D.; Cuin, T.A.; Mancuso, S.; Shabala, S. Friend or foe? Chloride patterning in halophytes. Trends Plant
Sci. 2019,24, 142–151.
11.
Teakle, N.L.; Tyerman, S.D. Mechanisms of Cl-transport contributing to salt tolerance. Plant Cell Environ.
2010
,33, 566–589.
[PubMed]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 13 of 22
12.
Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism
in plants under stressful conditions. J. Bot. 2012. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, Y.; Guo, Y. Unraveling salt stress signaling in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2018,60, 796–804. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Miller, G.; Suzuki, N.; Ciftci-Yilmaz, S.; Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and
salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 2010,33, 453–467.
15.
Arya, A.; Nyamathulla, S.; Noordin, M.I.; Mohd, M.A. Antioxidant and hypoglycemic activities of leaf extracts of three popular
Terminalia species. E-J. Chem. 2012,9, 883–892. [CrossRef]
16.
Golldack, D.; Li, C.; Mohan, H.; Probst, N. Tolerance to drought and salt stress in plants: Unraveling the signaling networks.
Front. Plant Sci. 2014,5, 151.
17.
Genisel, M.; Erdal, S.; Kizilkaya, M. The mitigating effect of cysteine on growth inhibition in salt-stressed barley seeds is related
to its own reducing capacity rather than its effects on antioxidant system. Plant Growth Regul. 2015,75, 187–197. [CrossRef]
18.
Wang, W.-B.; Kim, Y.-H.; Lee, H.-S.; Kim, K.-Y.; Deng, X.-P.; Kwak, S.-S. Analysis of antioxidant enzyme activity during
germination of alfalfa under salt and drought stresses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2009,47, 570–577. [CrossRef]
19.
Pottosin, I.; Dobrovinskaya, O. Non-selective cation channels in plasma and vacuolar membranes and their contribution to K
+
transport. J. Plant Physiol. 2014,171, 732–742. [CrossRef]
20.
Demidchik, V.; Shabala, S.; Isayenkov, S.; Cuin, T.A.; Pottosin, I. Calcium transport across plant membranes: Mechanisms and
functions. N. Phytol. 2018,220, 49–69. [CrossRef]
21.
Demidchik, V.; Shabala, S. Mechanisms of cytosolic calcium elevation in plants: The role of ion channels, calcium extrusion
systems and NADPH oxidase-mediated ‘ROS-Ca2+ Hub’. Funct. Plant Biol. 2018,45, 9–27. [CrossRef]
22.
Zaman, B.; Niazi, B.; Athar, M.; Ahmad, M. Response of wheat plants to sodium and calcium ion interaction under saline
environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005,2, 7–12. [CrossRef]
23.
Dang, Y.; Routley, R.; McDonald, M.; Dalal, R.; Singh, D.; Orange, D.; Mann, M. Subsoil constraints in Vertosols: Crop water use,
nutrient concentration, and grain yields of bread wheat, durum wheat, barley, chickpea, and canola. Aust. J. Agric. Res.
2006
,57,
983–998. [CrossRef]
24.
McDonald, G.K.; Taylor, J.; Verbyla, A.; Kuchel, H. Assessing the importance of subsoil constraints to yield of wheat and its
implications for yield improvement. Crop Pasture Sci. 2013,63, 1043–1065. [CrossRef]
25. Shabala, S.; Munns, R. Salinity stress: Physiological constraints and adaptive mechanisms. Plant Stress Physiol. 2012,1, 59–93.
26.
Orton, T.G.; Mallawaarachchi, T.; Pringle, M.J.; Menzies, N.W.; Dalal, R.C.; Kopittke, P.M.; Searle, R.; Hochman, Z.; Dang, Y.P.
Quantifying the economic impact of soil constraints on Australian agriculture: A case-study of wheat. Land Degrad. Dev.
2018
,29,
3866–3875. [CrossRef]
27.
Ashraf, M.; Athar, H.; Harris, P.; Kwon, T. Some prospective strategies for improving crop salt tolerance. Adv. Agron.
2008
,97,
45–110.
28.
Melero, S.; Madejón, E.; Ruiz, J.C.; Herencia, J.F. Chemical and biochemical properties of a clay soil under dryland agriculture
system as affected by organic fertilization. Eur. J. Agron. 2007,26, 327–334. [CrossRef]
29. Shahbaz, M.; Ashraf, M. Improving salinity tolerance in cereals. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2013,32, 237–249.
30.
Zahir, Z.A.; Akhtar, S.S.; Ahmad, M.; Nadeem, S.M.; Nadeem, S.M. Comparative effectiveness of Enterobacter aerogenes and
Pseudomonas fluorescens for mitigating the depressing effect of brackish water on maize. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012,14, 337–344.
31.
Akhtar, S.S.; Andersen, M.N.; Naveed, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Liu, F. Interactive effect of biochar and plant growth-promoting bacterial
endophytes on ameliorating salinity stress in maize. Funct. Plant Biol. 2015,42, 770–781. [CrossRef]
32. Hanay, A.; Büyüksönmez, F.; Kiziloglu, F.M.; Canbolat, M.Y. Reclamation of saline-sodic soils with gypsum and MSW compost.
Compos. Sci. Util. 2004,12, 175–179. [CrossRef]
33.
Akhtar, S.S.; Andersen, M.N.; Liu, F. Residual effects of biochar on improving growth, physiology and yield of wheat under salt
stress. Agric. Water Manag. 2015,158, 61–68. [CrossRef]
34.
Fahad, S.; Hussain, S.; Matloob, A.; Khan, F.A.; Khaliq, A.; Saud, S.; Hassan, S.; Shan, D.; Khan, F.; Ullah, N.; et al. Phytohormones
and plant responses to salinity stress: A review. Plant Growth Regul. 2015,75, 391–404. [CrossRef]
35. Flowers, T. Improving crop salt tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2004,55, 307–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Chinnusamy, V.; Jagendorf, A.; Zhu, J.K. Understanding and improving salt tolerance in plants. Crop Sci.
2005
,45, 437–448.
[CrossRef]
37.
Liang, W.; Ma, X.; Wan, P.; Liu, L. Plant salt-tolerance mechanism: A review. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.
2018
,495, 286–291.
[CrossRef]
38.
Chan, R.; Trucco, F.; Otegui, M. Why are second-generation transgenic crops not yet available in the market? J. Exp. Bot.
2020
,71,
6876–6880. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Ricroch, A.E.; Guillaume-Hofnung, M.; Kuntz, M. The ethical concerns about transgenic crops. Biochem. J.
2018
,475, 803–811.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Shew, A.M.; Nalley, L.L.; Snell, H.A.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Dixon, B.L. CRISPR versus GMOs: Public acceptance and valuation. Glob.
Food Secur. 2018,19, 71–80. [CrossRef]
41.
Rademacher, W. Plant growth regulators: Backgrounds and uses in plant production. J. Plant Growth Regul.
2015
,34, 845–872.
[CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 14 of 22
42.
Khan, N.; Bano, A.; Zandi, P. Effects of exogenously applied plant growth regulators in combination with PGPR on the physiology
and root growth of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and their role in drought tolerance. J. Plant Interact. 2018,13, 239–247. [CrossRef]
43.
Nadeem, S.M.; Ahmad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Javaid, A.; Ashraf, M. The role of mycorrhizae and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
(PGPR) in improving crop productivity under stressful environments. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014,32, 429–448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Keswani, C.; Prakash, O.; Bharti, N.; Vílchez, J.I.; Sansinenea, E.; Lally, R.D.; Borriss, R.; Singh, S.P.; Gupta, V.K.; Fraceto, L.F.; et al.
Re-addressing the biosafety issues of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,690, 841–852. [CrossRef]
45.
Han, Y.Y.; Li, A.X.; Li, F.; Zhao, R.M.; Wang, W. Characterization of a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) expansin gene, TaEXPB23,
involved in the abiotic stress response and phytohormone regulation. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012,54, 49–58. [CrossRef]
46. Fishel, F.M. Plant Growth Regulators; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2006; p. PI-102.
47. Hopkins, W.G. Introduction to Plant Physiology; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999.
48.
Avery, G.S.J. The Growth Hormones Found in Plants; 1937; Volume XXXVII, pp. 317–322. Available online: https://kb.osu.edu/
bitstream/handle/1811/2894/V37N06_317.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 23 May 2021).
49.
Pál, M.; Janda, T.; Szalai, G. Interactions between plant hormones and thiol-related heavy metal chelators. Plant Growth Regul.
2018,85, 173–185. [CrossRef]
50.
Bücker-Neto, L.; Paiva, A.L.S.; Machado, R.D.; Arenhart, R.A.; Margis-Pinheiro, M. Interactions between plant hormones and
heavy metals responses. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2017,40, 373–386. [CrossRef]
51.
Datta, K.; Varma, S.; Angrish, R.; Kumar, B.; Kumari, P. Alleviation of salt stress by plant growth regulators in Triticum aestivum L.
Biol. Plant 1997,40, 269–275. [CrossRef]
52.
Yu, Z.; Duan, X.; Luo, L.; Dai, S.; Ding, Z.; Xia, G. How plant hormones mediate salt stress responses. Trends Plant Sci.
2020
.
[CrossRef]
53. Wani, S.H.; Kumar, V.; Shriram, V.; Sah, S.K. Phytohormones and their metabolic engineering for abiotic stress tolerance in crop
plants. Crop J. 2016,4, 162–176. [CrossRef]
54.
Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Seed treatment with auxins modulates growth and ion partitioning in salt-stressed wheat plants. J. Integr.
Plant Biol. 2007,49, 1003–1015. [CrossRef]
55.
Faghih, S.; Zarei, A.; Ghobadi, C. Positive effects of plant growth regulators on physiology responses of Fragaria
×
ananassa
cv.‘Camarosa’under salt stress. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2019,19, 104–114. [CrossRef]
56. Rhaman, M.S.; Imran, S.; Rauf, F.; Khatun, M.; Baskin, C.C.; Murata, Y.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Seed Priming with Phytohormones:
An Effective Approach for the Mitigation of Abiotic Stress. Plants 2021,10, 37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Qiu, Z.; Guo, J.; Zhu, A.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, M. Exogenous jasmonic acid can enhance tolerance of wheat seedlings to salt stress.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014,104, 202–208. [CrossRef]
58.
Ashraf, M.; Karim, F.; Rasul, E. Interactive effects of gibberellic acid (GA 3) and salt stress on growth, ion accumulation and
photosynthetic capacity of two spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars differing in salt tolerance. Plant Growth Regul. 2002,
36, 49–59. [CrossRef]
59.
Kaydan, D.; Yagmur, M.; Okut, N. Effects of salicylic acid on the growth and some physiological characters in salt stressed wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.). Tarim Bilimleri Derg. 2007,13, 114–119.
60.
Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M.; Jamil, A. Seed enhancement with cytokinins: Changes in growth and grain yield in salt stressed wheat
plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2006,50, 29–39. [CrossRef]
61.
Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Presowing seed treatment with cytokinins and its effect on growth, photosynthetic rate, ionic levels and
yield of two wheat cultivars differing in salt tolerance. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2005,47, 1315–1325. [CrossRef]
62.
Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Gibberellic acid mediated induction of salt tolerance in wheat plants: Growth, ionic partitioning, photosyn-
thesis, yield and hormonal homeostasis. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013,86, 76–85. [CrossRef]
63.
Mittler, R.; Vanderauwera, S.; Suzuki, N.; Miller, G.; Tognetti, V.B.; Vandepoele, K.; Gollery, M.; Shulaev, V.; Breusegem, F.V. ROS
signaling: The new wave? Trends Plant Sci. 2011,16, 300–309. [CrossRef]
64.
Tognetti, V.B.; Mühlenbock, P.; Van Breusegem, F. Stress homeostasis–the redox and auxin perspective. Plant Cell Environ.
2012
,
35, 321–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
López, M.L.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Benitez, T.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Enhancement of lead uptake by alfalfa (Medicago sativa) using
EDTA and a plant growth promoter. Chemosphere 2005,61, 595–598. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Hadi, F.; Bano, A.; Fuller, M.P. The improved phytoextraction of lead (Pb) and the growth of maize (Zea mays L.): The role of plant
growth regulators (GA3 and IAA) and EDTA alone and in combinations. Chemosphere 2010,80, 457–462. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67.
Fässler, E.; Evangelou, M.W.; Robinson, B.H.; Schulin, R. Effects of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) on sunflower growth and heavy
metal uptake in combination with ethylene diamine disuccinic acid (EDDS). Chemosphere 2010,80, 901–907. [CrossRef]
68.
Davies, P.J. Regulatory Factors in Hormone Action: Level, Location and Signal Transduction. In Plant Hormones; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 16–35.
69.
Bennett, T.; Hines, G.; van Rongen, M.; Waldie, T.; Sawchuk, M.G.; Scarpella, E.; Ljung, K. Connective auxin transport in the shoot
facilitates communication between shoot apices. PLoS Biol. 2016,14, e1002446. [CrossRef]
70. Leyser, O. Auxin signaling. Plant Physiol. 2018,176, 465–479. [CrossRef]
71.
Brumos, J.; Robles, L.M.; Yun, J.; Vu, T.C.; Jackson, S.; Alonso, J.M.; Stepanova, A.N. Local auxin biosynthesis is a key regulator of
plant development. Dev. Cell 2018,47, 306–318.e5. [CrossRef]
72. Lau, S.; Jürgens, G.; De Smet, I. The evolving complexity of the auxin pathway. Plant Cell 2008,20, 1738–1746. [CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 15 of 22
73.
Heisler, M.G.; Byrne, M.E. Progress in understanding the role of auxin in lateral organ development in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant
Biol. 2020,53, 73–79. [CrossRef]
74.
Perrot-Rechenmann, C. Cellular responses to auxin: Division versus expansion. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.
2010
,2, a001446.
[CrossRef]
75. Majda, M.; Robert, S. The role of auxin in cell wall expansion. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018,19, 951. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76.
Hager, A. Role of the plasma membrane H+-ATPase in auxin-induced elongation growth: Historical and new aspects. J. Plant Res.
2003,116, 483–505. [CrossRef]
77.
Du, M.; Spalding, E.P.; Gray, W.M. Rapid Auxin-Mediated Cell Expansion. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.
2020
,71, 379–402. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
78.
Julkowska, M.M.; Hoefsloot, H.C.; Mol, S.; Feron, R.; de Boer, G.-J.; Haring, M.A.; Testerink, C. Capturing Arabidopsis root
architecture dynamics with ROOT-FIT reveals diversity in responses to salinity. Plant Physiol. 2014,166, 1387–1402. [CrossRef]
79. Munns, R. Genes and salt tolerance: Bringing them together. N. Phytol. 2005,167, 645–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80.
Fu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Chen, S.; Ning, N.; Hu, H. Arabidopsis IAR4 modulates primary root growth under salt stress through
ROS-mediated modulation of auxin distribution. Front. Plant Sci. 2019,10, 522. [CrossRef]
81.
Korver, R.A.; Koevoets, I.T.; Testerink, C. Out of shape during stress: A key role for auxin. Trends Plant Sci.
2018
,23, 783–793.
[CrossRef]
82.
Liu, W.; Li, R.-J.; Han, T.-T.; Cai, W.; Fu, Z.-W.; Lu, Y.-T. Salt stress reduces root meristem size by nitric oxide-mediated modulation
of auxin accumulation and signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2015,168, 343–356. [CrossRef]
83.
Jiang, K.; Moe-Lange, J.; Hennet, L.; Feldman, L.J. Salt stress affects the redox status of Arabidopsis root meristems. Front. Plant
Sci. 2016,7, 81. [CrossRef]
84.
Khalid, A.; Aftab, F. Effect of exogenous application of IAA and GA 3 on growth, protein content, and antioxidant enzymes of
Solanum tuberosum L. grown in vitro under salt stress. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2020,56, 1–13.
85.
Ivanov, V.; Bystrova, E.; Seregin, I. Comparative impacts of heavy metals on root growth as related to their specificity and
selectivity. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2003,50, 398–406. [CrossRef]
86.
Sun, F.; Zhang, W.; Hu, H.; Li, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, K.; Liu, M.; Li, X. Salt modulates gravity signaling pathway to regulate
growth direction of primary roots in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2008,146, 178–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87.
Prasad, M.N.V. Heavy Metal Stress in Plants: From Biomolecules to Ecosystems; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin,
Germany, 2013.
88.
Petersson, S.V.; Johansson, A.I.; Kowalczyk, M.; Makoveychuk, A.; Wang, J.Y.; Moritz, T.; Grebe, M.; Benfey, P.N.; Sandberg, G.;
Ljung, K. An auxin gradient and maximum in the Arabidopsis root apex shown by high-resolution cell-specific analysis of IAA
distribution and synthesis. Plant Cell 2009,21, 1659–1668. [CrossRef]
89.
Wang, Y.; Li, K.; Li, X. Auxin redistribution modulates plastic development of root system architecture under salt stress in
Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Plant Physiol. 2009,166, 1637–1645. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90.
He, F.; Xu, C.; Fu, X.; Shen, Y.; Guo, L.; Leng, M.; Luo, K. The MicroRNA390/TRANS-acting short interfering RNA3 module
mediates lateral root growth under salt stress via the auxin pathway. Plant Physiol. 2018,177, 775–791. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91.
Doorn, M.M.V.; Merl-Pham, J.; Ghirardo, A.; Fink, S.; Polle, A.; Schnitzler, J.P.; Rosenkranz, M. Root isoprene formation alters
lateral root development. Plant Cell Environ. 2020,43, 2207–2223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92.
Simon, L.; Bousquet, J.; Lévesque, R.C.; Lalonde, M. Origin and diversification of endomycorrhizal fungi and coincidence with
vascular land plants. Nature 1993,363, 67–69. [CrossRef]
93.
Aoi, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Cook, S.D.; Hayashi, K.-I.; Kasahara, H. GH3 auxin-amido synthetases alter the ratio of indole-3-acetic acid
and phenylacetic acid in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020,61, 596–605. [CrossRef]
94.
Kazan, K. Auxin and the integration of environmental signals into plant root development. Ann. Bot.
2013
,112, 1655–1665.
[CrossRef]
95.
Zörb, C.; Geilfus, C.-M.; Mühling, K.H.; Ludwig-Müller, J. The influence of salt stress on ABA and auxin concentrations in two
maize cultivars differing in salt resistance. J. Plant Physiol. 2013,170, 220–224. [CrossRef]
96.
Ji, J.; Yuan, D.; Jin, C.; Wang, G.; Li, X.; Guan, C. Enhancement of growth and salt tolerance of rice seedlings (Oryza sativa L.) by
regulating ethylene production with a novel halotolerant PGPR strain Glutamicibacter sp. YD01 containing ACC deaminase
activity. Acta Physiol. Plant 2020,42, 1–17. [CrossRef]
97.
Zhang, S.; Gan, Y.; Xu, B. Mechanisms of the IAA and ACC-deaminase producing strain of Trichoderma longibrachiatum T6 in
enhancing wheat seedling tolerance to NaCl stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2019,19, 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98.
Kaya, C.; Ashraf, M.; Dikilitas, M.; Tuna, A.L. Alleviation of salt stress-induced adverse effects on maize plants by exogenous
application of indoleacetic acid (IAA) and inorganic nutrients—A field trial. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013,7, 249.
99.
Javid, M.G.; Sorooshzadeh, A.; Sanavy, S.A.M.M.; Allahdadi, I.; Moradi, F. Effects of the exogenous application of auxin and
cytokinin on carbohydrate accumulation in grains of rice under salt stress. Plant Growth Regul. 2011,65, 305–313. [CrossRef]
100.
Iqbal, M.; Ashraf, M. Alleviation of salinity-induced perturbations in ionic and hormonal concentrations in spring wheat through
seed preconditioning in synthetic auxins. Acta Physiol. Plant 2013,35, 1093–1112. [CrossRef]
101.
Nawaz, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Asadullah; Imran, A.; Marghoob, M.U.; Imtiaz, M.; Mubeen, F. Potential of salt tolerant PGPR in growth
and yield augmentation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under saline conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2020,11, 2019. [CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 16 of 22
102.
Guo, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Hu, Z.; Sun, X.; Fan, S.; Zhang, H. Function of the auxin-responsive gene TaSAUR75 under salt and drought
stress. Crop J. 2018,6, 181–190. [CrossRef]
103.
Talboys, P.J.; Healey, J.R.; Withers, P.J.; Jones, D.L. Phosphate depletion modulates auxin transport in Triticum aestivum leading to
altered root branching. J. Exp. Bot. 2014,65, 5023–5032. [CrossRef]
104.
Aina, O.; Quesenberry, K.; Gallo, M. Thidiazuron-induced tissue culture regeneration from quartered-seed explants of Arachis
paraguariensis.Crop Sci. 2012,52, 1076–1083.
105. Mok, D.W.; Mok, M.C. Cytokinin metabolism and action. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2001,52, 89–118. [CrossRef]
106. Sakakibara, H. Cytokinins: Activity, biosynthesis, and translocation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006,57, 431–449. [CrossRef]
107.
Stirk, W.A.; Gold, J.D.; Novák, O.; Strnad, M.; Van Staden, J. Changes in endogenous cytokinins during germination and seedling
establishment of Tagetes minuta L. Plant Growth Regul. 2005,47, 1–7. [CrossRef]
108.
Bishopp, A.; Lehesranta, S.; Vatén,A.; Help, H.; El-Showk, S.; Scheres, B.; Helariutta, K.; Mähönen, A.P.; Sakakibara, H.; Helariutta,
Y.H. Phloem-transported cytokinin regulates polar auxin transport and maintains vascular pattern in the root meristem. Curr.
Biol. 2011,21, 927–932. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109.
Kiba, T.; Takei, K.; Kojima, M.; Sakakibara, H. Side-chain modification of cytokinins controls shoot growth in Arabidopsis. Dev.
Cell 2013,27, 452–461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110.
Li, S.-M.; Zheng, H.-X.; Zhang, X.-S.; Sui, N. Cytokinins as central regulators during plant growth and stress response. Plant Cell
Rep. 2021,40, 271–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111.
Hyoung, S.; Cho, S.H.; Chung, J.H.; So, W.M.; Cui, M.H.; Shin, J.S. Cytokinin oxidase PpCKX1 plays regulatory roles in
development and enhances dehydration and salt tolerance in Physcomitrella patens.Plant Cell Rep.
2020
,39, 419–430. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
112.
Nishiyama, R.; Watanabe, Y.; Fujita, Y.; Le, D.T.; Kojima, M.; Werner, T.; Vankova, R.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K.;
Kakimoto, T.; et al. Analysis of cytokinin mutants and regulation of cytokinin metabolic genes reveals important regulatory roles
of cytokinins in drought, salt and abscisic acid responses, and abscisic acid biosynthesis. Plant Cell
2011
,23, 2169–2183. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
113.
Wang, Y.; Shen, W.; Chan, Z.; Wu, Y. Endogenous cytokinin overproduction modulates ROS homeostasis and decreases salt stress
resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana.Front. Plant Sci. 2015,6, 1004. [CrossRef]
114.
Cortleven, A.; Leuendorf, J.E.; Frank, M.; Pezzetta, D.; Bolt, S.; Schmülling, T. Cytokinin action in response to abiotic and biotic
stresses in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2019,42, 998–1018. [CrossRef]
115.
Tran, L.-S.P.; Urao, T.; Qin, F.; Maruyama, K.; Kakimoto, T.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Functional analysis of
AHK1/ATHK1 and cytokinin receptor histidine kinases in response to abscisic acid, drought, and salt stress in Arabidopsis.Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007,104, 20623–20628. [CrossRef]
116.
Nishiyama, R.; Le, D.T.; Watanabe, Y.; Matsui, A.; Tanaka, M.; Seki, M.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.P.
Transcriptome analyses of a salt-tolerant cytokinin-deficient mutant reveal differential regulation of salt stress response by
cytokinin deficiency. PLoS ONE 2012,7, e32124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117.
Aremu, A.O.; Masondo, N.A.; Sunmonu, T.O.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Zatloukal, M.; Spichal, L.; Doležal, K.; Staden, J.V.A novel inhibitor
of cytokinin degradation (INCYDE) influences the biochemical parameters and photosynthetic apparatus in NaCl-stressed tomato
plants. Planta 2014,240, 877–889. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
118.
Joshi, R.; Sahoo, K.K.; Tripathi, A.K.; Kumar, R.; Gupta, B.K.; Pareek, A.; Singla-Pareek, S.L. Knockdown of an inflorescence
meristem-specific cytokinin oxidase–OsCKX2 in rice reduces yield penalty under salinity stress condition. Plant Cell Environ.
2018,41, 936–946. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
119.
Ashikari, M.; Sakakibara, H.; Lin, S.; Yamamoto, T.; Takashi, T.; Nishimura, A.; Angeles, E.R.; Qian, Q.; Kitano, H.; Matsuoka, M.
Cytokinin oxidase regulates rice grain production. Science 2005,309, 741–745. [CrossRef]
120.
Yin, W.; Xiao, Y.; Niu, M.; Meng, W.; Li, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, D.; Zhang, G.; Qian, Y.; Sun, Z.; et al. ARGONAUTE2 enhances grain
length and salt tolerance by activating BIG GRAIN3 to modulate cytokinin distribution in rice. Plant Cell
2020
,32, 2292–2306.
[CrossRef]
121.
Gadallah, M. Effects of kinetin on growth, grain yield and some mineral elements in wheat plants growing under excess salinity
and oxygen deficiency. Plant Growth Regul. 1999,27, 63–74. [CrossRef]
122. Osugi, A.; Sakakibara, H. Q&A: How do plants respond to cytokinins and what is their importance? BMC Biol. 2015,13, 102.
123.
Kakimoto, T. CKI1, a histidine kinase homolog implicated in cytokinin signal transduction. Science
1996
,274, 982–985. [CrossRef]
124.
Zwack, P.J.; De Clercq, I.; Howton, T.C.; Hallmark, H.T.; Hurny, A.; Keshishian, E.A.; Parish, A.M.; Benkova, E.; Mukhtar, M.S.;
Breusegem, F.V.; et al. Cytokinin response factor 6 represses cytokinin-associated genes during oxidative stress. Plant Physiol.
2016,172, 1249–1258. [CrossRef]
125.
Ma, X.; Feng, D.-S.; Wang, H.-G.; Li, X.-F.; Kong, L.-R. Cloning and expression analysis of wheat cytokinin oxidase/dehydrogenase
gene TaCKX3.Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2011,29, 98–105. [CrossRef]
126.
Jabło´nski, B.; Ogonowska, H.; Szala, K.; Bajguz, A.; Orczyk, W.; Nadolska-Orczyk, A. Silencing of TaCKX1 mediates expression of
other TaCKX genes to increase grain yield in wheat. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 4809. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
127.
Mason, M.G.; Jha, D.; Salt, D.E.; Tester, M.; Hill, K.; Kieber, J.J.; Schaller, G.E. Type-B response regulators ARR1 and ARR12
regulate expression of AtHKT1; 1 and accumulation of sodium in Arabidopsis shoots. Plant J.
2010
,64, 753–763. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 17 of 22
128.
Rashotte, A.M.; Goertzen, L.R. The CRF domain defines cytokinin response factor proteins in plants. BMC Plant Biol.
2010
,10, 74.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
129.
Rashotte, A.M.; Mason, M.G.; Hutchison, C.E.; Ferreira, F.J.; Schaller, G.E.; Kieber, J.J. A subset of Arabidopsis AP2 transcription
factors mediates cytokinin responses in concert with a two-component pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2006
,103, 11081–11085.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
130.
Nishiyama, R.; Watanabe, Y.; Leyva-Gonzalez, M.A.; Van Ha, C.; Fujita, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Seki, M.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.;
Shinozaki, K.; Herrera-Estrella, L.; et al. Arabidopsis AHP2, AHP3, and AHP5 histidine phosphotransfer proteins function as
redundant negative regulators of drought stress response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2013
,110, 4840–4845. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131.
Mira-Rodado, V.; Veerabagu, M.; Witthöft, J.; Teply, J.; Harter, K.; Desikan, R. Identification of two-component system elements
downstream of AHK5 in the stomatal closure response of Arabidopsis thaliana.Plant Signal. Behav.
2012
,7, 1467–1476. [CrossRef]
132.
Davenport, R.J.; Muñoz-Mayor, A.; Jha, D.; Essah, P.A.; Rus, A.; Tester, M. The Na+ transporter AtHKT1; 1 controls retrieval of
Na+ from the xylem in Arabidopsis.Plant Cell Environ. 2007,30, 497–507. [CrossRef]
133.
Nguyen, K.H.; Van Ha, C.; Nishiyama, R.; Watanabe, Y.; Leyva-González, M.A.; Fujita, Y.; Tran, U.T.; Li, W.; Tanaka, M.; Seki, M.;
et al. Arabidopsis type B cytokinin response regulators ARR1, ARR10, and ARR12 negatively regulate plant responses to drought.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016,113, 3090–3095. [CrossRef]
134.
Li, S.; An, Y.; Hailati, S.; Zhang, J.; Cao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Geng, J.; Hu, T.; Yang, P. Overexpression of the cytokinin oxidase/dehydrogenase
(CKX) from Medicago sativa enhanced salt stress tolerance of Arabidopsis. J. Plant Biol. 2019,62, 374–386. [CrossRef]
135.
Corpas, F.J.; Palma, J.M.; Del Río, L.A.; Barroso, J.B. Evidence supporting the existence of L-arginine-dependent nitric oxide
synthase activity in plants. N. Phytol. 2009,184, 9–14. [CrossRef]
136.
Rockel, P.; Strube, F.; Rockel, A.; Wildt, J.; Kaiser, W.M. Regulation of nitric oxide (NO) production by plant nitrate reductase
in vivo and in vitro. J. Exp. Bot. 2002,53, 103–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137.
Wilson, I.D.; Neill, S.J.; Hancock, J.T. Nitric oxide synthesis and signalling in plants. Plant Cell Environ.
2008
,31, 622–631.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
138.
Corpas, F.J.; Barroso, J.B.; Carreras, A.; Valderrama, R.; Palma, J.M.; León, A.M.; Sandalio, L.M.; Río, L.A.D. Constitutive
arginine-dependent nitric oxide synthase activity in different organs of pea seedlings during plant development. Planta
2006
,224,
246–254. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139.
Asgher, M.; Per, T.S.; Masood, A.; Fatma, M.; Freschi, L.; Corpas, F.J.; Khan, N.A. Nitric oxide signaling and its crosstalk with
other plant growth regulators in plant responses to abiotic stress. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017,24, 2273–2285. [CrossRef]
140.
Sami, F.; Faizan, M.; Faraz, A.; Siddiqui, H.; Yusuf, M.; Hayat, S. Nitric oxide-mediated integrative alterations in plant metabolism
to confer abiotic stress tolerance, NO crosstalk with phytohormones and NO-mediated post translational modifications in
modulating diverse plant stress. Nitric Oxide 2018,73, 22–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141.
Khan, M.N.; Mobin, M.; Abbas, Z.K.; Siddiqui, M.H. Nitric oxide-induced synthesis of hydrogen sulfide alleviates osmotic stress
in wheat seedlings through sustaining antioxidant enzymes, osmolyte accumulation and cysteine homeostasis. Nitric Oxide
2017
,
68, 91–102. [CrossRef]
142.
Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Basalah, M.O. Role of nitric oxide in tolerance of plants to abiotic stress. Protoplasma
2011
,248,
447–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143.
Khan, M.N.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Mohammad, F.; Naeem, M. Interactive role of nitric oxide and calcium chloride in enhancing
tolerance to salt stress. Nitric Oxide 2012,27, 210–218. [CrossRef]
144.
Shi, H.; Liu, W.; Wei, Y.; Ye, T. Integration of auxin/indole-3-acetic acid 17 and RGA-LIKE3 confers salt stress resistance through
stabilization by nitric oxide in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2017,68, 1239–1249. [CrossRef]
145.
Zheng, C.; Jiang, D.; Liu, F.; Dai, T.; Liu, W.; Jing, Q.; Cao, W. Exogenous nitric oxide improves seed germination in wheat against
mitochondrial oxidative damage induced by high salinity. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009,67, 222–227. [CrossRef]
146.
Kausar, F.; Shahbaz, M.; Ashraf, M. Protective role of foliar-applied nitric oxide in Triticum aestivum under saline stress. Turk. J.
Bot. 2013,37, 1155–1165. [CrossRef]
147. Ali, Q.; Daud, M.; Haider, M.Z.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Aslam, N.; Noman, A.; Iqbal, N.; Shahzad, F.; Deeba, F.; et al. Seed priming
by sodium nitroprusside improves salt tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) by enhancing physiological and biochemical
parameters. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017,119, 50–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
148.
Sehar, Z.; Masood, A.; Khan, N.A. Nitric oxide reverses glucose-mediated photosynthetic repression in wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) under salt stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019,161, 277–289. [CrossRef]
149.
Ruan, H.-H.; Shen, W.-B.; Xu, L.-L. Nitric oxide modulates the activities of plasma membrane H
+
-ATPase and PPase in wheat
seedling roots and promotes the salt tolerance against salt stress. Acta Bot. Sin. 2004,46, 415–422.
150.
Thomas, D.D.; Liu, X.; Kantrow, S.P.; Lancaster, J.R. The biological lifetime of nitric oxide: Implications for the perivascular
dynamics of NO and O2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001,98, 355–360. [CrossRef]
151.
García-Martínez, J. Editor Gibberellin metabolism and control of fruit growth. Int. Symp. Plant Bioregul. Fruit Prod.
1997
,463.
[CrossRef]
152.
Gao, S.; Chu, C. Gibberellin metabolism and signaling: Targets for improving agronomic performance of crops. Plant Cell Physiol.
2020,61, 1902–1911. [CrossRef]
153.
Sponsel, V.M.; Hedden, P. Gibberellin Biosynthesis and Inactivation. In Plant Hormones; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010;
pp. 63–94.

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 18 of 22
154.
Serrani, J.C.; Sanjuán, R.; Ruiz-Rivero, O.; Fos, M.; García-Martínez, J.L. Gibberellin regulation of fruit set and growth in tomato.
Plant Physiol. 2007,145, 246–257. [CrossRef]
155.
Tudzynski, B.; Hölter, K. Gibberellin Biosynthetic Pathway inGibberella fujikuroi: Evidence for a Gene Cluster. Fungal Genet. Biol.
1998,25, 157–170. [CrossRef]
156. Hedden, P. The current status of research on gibberellin biosynthesis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2020,61, 1832–1849. [CrossRef]
157.
Liu, L.; Xia, W.; Li, H.; Zeng, H.; Wei, B.; Han, S.; Yin, C. Salinity inhibits rice seed germination by reducing
α
-amylase activity via
decreased bioactive gibberellin content. Front. Plant Sci. 2018,9, 275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
158.
Lv, S.; Yu, D.; Sun, Q.; Jiang, J. Activation of gibberellin 20-oxidase 2 undermines auxin-dependent root and root hair growth in
NaCl-stressed Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant Growth Regul. 2018,84, 225–236. [CrossRef]
159.
Achard, P.; Cheng, H.; De Grauwe, L.; Decat, J.; Schoutteten, H.; Moritz, T.; Straeten, D.V.D.; Peng, J.; Harberd, N.P. Integration of
plant responses to environmentally activated phytohormonal signals. Science 2006,311, 91–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
160.
Shan, C.; Mei, Z.; Duan, J.; Chen, H.; Feng, H.; Cai, W. OsGA2ox5, a gibberellin metabolism enzyme, is involved in plant growth,
the root gravity response and salt stress. PLoS ONE 2014,9, e87110.
161.
Zhu, N.; Cheng, S.; Liu, X.; Du, H.; Dai, M.; Zhou, D.; Yang, W.; Zhao, Y. The R2R3-type MYB gene OsMYB91 has a function in
coordinating plant growth and salt stress tolerance in rice. Plant Sci. 2015,236, 146–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
162.
Magome, H.; Yamaguchi, S.; Hanada, A.; Kamiya, Y.; Oda, K. The DDF1 transcriptional activator upregulates expression of a
gibberellin-deactivating gene, GA2ox7, under high-salinity stress in Arabidopsis.Plant J. 2008,56, 613–626. [CrossRef]
163.
Zhou, J.; Li, Z.; Xiao, G.; Zhai, M.; Pan, X.; Huang, R.; Zhang, H. CYP71D8L is a key regulator involved in growth and stress
responses by mediating gibberellin homeostasis in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2020,71, 1160–1170. [PubMed]
164.
Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Yin, L.; Deng, X.; Wang, S. Exogenous application of gibberellic acid participates in up-regulation of lipid
biosynthesis under salt stress in rice. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2018,30, 335–345. [CrossRef]
165.
Wang, Y.-H.; Zhang, G.; Chen, Y.; Gao, J.; Sun, Y.-R.; Sun, M.-F.; Chen, J.-P. Exogenous application of gibberellic acid and ascorbic
acid improved tolerance of okra seedlings to NaCl stress. Acta Physiol. Plant 2019,41, 93. [CrossRef]
166.
Ahanger, M.A.; Ashraf, M.; Bajguz, A.; Ahmad, P. Brassinosteroids regulate growth in plants under stressful environments and
crosstalk with other potential phytohormones. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2018,37, 1007–1024. [CrossRef]
167.
Fariduddin, Q.; Yusuf, M.; Ahmad, I.; Ahmad, A. Brassinosteroids and their role in response of plants to abiotic stresses. Biol.
Plant 2014,58, 9–17. [CrossRef]
168.
Sirhindi, G. Brassinosteroids: Biosynthesis and Role in Growth, Development, and Thermotolerance Responses. In Molecular
Stress Physiology of Plants; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 309–329.
169.
Saini, S.; Sharma, I.; Pati, P.K. Versatile roles of brassinosteroid in plants in the context of its homoeostasis, signaling and crosstalks.
Front. Plant Sci. 2015,6, 950. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
170.
Grove, M.D.; Spencer, G.F.; Rohwedder, W.K.; Mandava, N.; Worley, J.F.; Warthen, J.D.; Steffens, G.L.; Flippen-Anderson,
J.L.; Cook, J.C. Brassinolide, a plant growth-promoting steroid isolated from Brassica napus pollen. Nature
1979
,281, 216–217.
[CrossRef]
171. Wei, Z.; Li, J. Brassinosteroids regulate root growth, development, and symbiosis. Mol. Plant 2016,9, 86–100. [CrossRef]
172.
Ahammed, G.J.; Xia, X.-J.; Li, X.; Shi, K.; Yu, J.-Q.; Zhou, Y.-H. Role of brassinosteroid in plant adaptation to abiotic stresses and
its interplay with other hormones. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2015,16, 462–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
173.
Siddiqui, H.; Ahmed, K.B.M.; Hayat, S. Comparative effect of 28-homobrassinolide and 24-epibrassinolide on the performance of
different components influencing the photosynthetic machinery in Brassica juncea L. Plant Physiol. Biochem.
2018
,129, 198–212.
[CrossRef]
174.
Vardhini, B.V.; Anjum, N.A. Brassinosteroids make plant life easier under abiotic stresses mainly by modulating major components
of antioxidant defense system. Front. Environ. Sci. 2015,2, 67. [CrossRef]
175.
Qayyum, B.; Shahbaz, M.; Akram, N.A. Interactive effect of foliar application of 24-epibrassinolide and root zone salinity on
morpho-physiological attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2007,9, 584–589.
176.
Dong, Y.J.; Wang, W.W.; Hu, G.Q.; Chen, W.F.; Zhuge, Y.P.; Wang, Z.L.; He, M.R. Role of exogenous 24-epibrassinolide in
enhancing the salt tolerance of wheat seedlings. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017,17, 554–569. [CrossRef]
177.
Yusuf, M.; Fariduddin, Q.; Khan, T.; Hayat, S. Epibrassinolide reverses the stress generated by combination of excess aluminum
and salt in two wheat cultivars through altered proline metabolism and antioxidants. S. Afr. J. Bot.
2017
,112, 391–398. [CrossRef]
178.
Rady, M.M. Effect of 24-epibrassinolide on growth, yield, antioxidant system and cadmium content of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
plants under salinity and cadmium stress. Sci. Hortic. 2011,129, 232–237. [CrossRef]
179.
Shahid, M.A.; Balal, R.M.; Pervez, M.A.; Garcia-Sanchez, F.; Gimeno, V.; Abbas, T.; Mattson, N.C.; Riaz, A. Treatment with 24-
epibrassinolide mitigates NaCl-induced toxicity by enhancing carbohydrate metabolism, osmolyte accumulation, and antioxidant
activity in Pisum sativum.Turk. J. Bot. 2014,38, 511–525. [CrossRef]
180.
Koh, S.; Lee, S.-C.; Kim, M.-K.; Koh, J.H.; Lee, S.; An, G.; Choe, S.; Kim, S.-R. T-DNA tagged knockout mutation of rice OsGSK1, an
orthologue of Arabidopsis BIN2, with enhanced tolerance to various abiotic stresses. Plant Mol. Biol.
2007
,65, 453–466. [CrossRef]
181. Krishna, P. Brassinosteroid-mediated stress responses. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2003,22, 289–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
182.
Manavalan, L.P.; Chen, X.; Clarke, J.; Salmeron, J.; Nguyen, H.T. RNAi-mediated disruption of squalene synthase improves
drought tolerance and yield in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2012,63, 163–175. [CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 19 of 22
183.
Xia, X.-J.; Wang, Y.-J.; Zhou, Y.-H.; Tao, Y.; Mao, W.-H.; Shi, K.; Asami, T.; Chen, Z.; Yu, J.-Q. Reactive oxygen species are involved
in brassinosteroid-induced stress tolerance in cucumber. Plant Physiol. 2009,150, 801–814. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
184.
Wang, Z.-Y.; Bai, M.-Y.; Oh, E.; Zhu, J.-Y. Brassinosteroid signaling network and regulation of photomorphogenesis. Annu. Rev.
Genet. 2012,46, 701–724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
185.
Sharma, I.; Ching, E.; Saini, S.; Bhardwaj, R.; Pati, P.K. Exogenous application of brassinosteroid offers tolerance to salinity by
altering stress responses in rice variety Pusa Basmati-1. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013,69, 17–26. [CrossRef]
186.
Cui, F.; Liu, L.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Q.; Lin, B.; Wu, Y.; Tang, S.; Xie, Q. Arabidopsis ubiquitin conjugase UBC32 is an ERAD
component that functions in brassinosteroid-mediated salt stress tolerance. Plant Cell 2012,24, 233–244. [CrossRef]
187.
Divi, U.K.; Rahman, T.; Krishna, P. Brassinosteroid-mediated stress tolerance in Arabidopsis shows interactions with abscisic acid,
ethylene and salicylic acid pathways. BMC Plant Biol. 2010,10, 151. [CrossRef]
188.
Yuan, G.-F.; Jia, C.-G.; Li, Z.; Sun, B.; Zhang, L.-P.; Liu, N.; Wang, Q.-M. Effect of brassinosteroids on drought resistance and
abscisic acid concentration in tomato under water stress. Sci. Hortic. 2010,126, 103–108. [CrossRef]
189.
Bajguz, A. Brassinosteroid enhanced the level of abscisic acid in Chlorella vulgaris subjected to short-term heat stress. J. Plant
Physiol. 2009,166, 882–886. [CrossRef]
190.
Zhang, S.; Cai, Z.; Wang, X. The primary signaling outputs of brassinosteroids are regulated by abscisic acid signaling. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2009,106, 4543–4548. [CrossRef]
191.
Gururani, M.A.; Mohanta, T.K.; Bae, H. Current understanding of the interplay between phytohormones and photosynthesis
under environmental stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015,16, 19055–19085. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
192.
Hayat, S.; Ali, B.; Ahmad, A. Salicylic Acid: Biosynthesis, Metabolism and Physiological Role in Plants. In Salicylic Acid: A Plant
Hormone; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–14.
193.
Senaratna, T.; Touchell, D.; Bunn, E.; Dixon, K. Acetyl salicylic acid (Aspirin) and salicylic acid induce multiple stress tolerance in
bean and tomato plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2000,30, 157–161. [CrossRef]
194.
Tabur, S.; Avci, Z.D.; Özmen, S. Exogenous salicylic acid application against mitodepressive and clastogenic effects induced by
salt stress in barley apical meristems. Biologia 2020,76, 1–10. [CrossRef]
195.
Simaei, M.; Khavarinejad, R.; Saadatmand, S.; Bernard, F.; Fahimi, H. Interactive effects of salicylic acid and nitric oxide on
soybean plants under NaCl salinity. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2011,58, 783. [CrossRef]
196.
Csiszár, J.; Brunner, S.; Horváth, E.; Bela, K.; Ködmön, P.; Riyazuddin, R.; Gallé,Á.; Hurton, Á.; Papdi, C.; Szabados, L.; et al.
Exogenously applied salicylic acid maintains redox homeostasis in salt-stressed Arabidopsis gr1 mutants expressing cytosolic
roGFP1. Plant Growth Regul. 2018,86, 181–194. [CrossRef]
197.
Szalai, G.; Kell˝os, T.; Galiba, G.; Kocsy, G. Glutathione as an antioxidant and regulatory molecule in plants under abiotic stress
conditions. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2009,28, 66–80. [CrossRef]
198.
Nazar, R.; Umar, S.; Khan, N.A. Exogenous salicylic acid improves photosynthesis and growth through increase in ascorbate-
glutathione metabolism and S assimilation in mustard under salt stress. Plant Signal. Behav. 2015,10, e1003751. [CrossRef]
199.
Li, G.; Peng, X.; Wei, L.; Kang, G. Salicylic acid increases the contents of glutathione and ascorbate and temporally regulates the
related gene expression in salt-stressed wheat seedlings. Gene 2013,529, 321–325. [CrossRef]
200.
Dolatabadian, A.; Modarres Sanavy, S.A.M.; Sharifi, M. Effect of salicylic acid and salt on wheat seed germination. Acta Agric.
Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2009,59, 456–464. [CrossRef]
201.
Kang, G.; Li, G.; Zheng, B.; Han, Q.; Wang, C.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Proteomic analysis on salicylic acid-induced salt tolerance in
common wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.). Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA) Proteins Proteom.
2012
,1824, 1324–1333. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
202.
Ma, X.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Hu, Q.; Qian, R. Salicylic acid alleviates the adverse effects of salt stress on Dianthus superbus
(Caryophyllaceae) by activating photosynthesis, protecting morphological structure, and enhancing the antioxidant system. Front.
Plant Sci. 2017,8, 600. [CrossRef]
203.
Yadav, T.; Kumar, A.; Yadav, R.; Yadav, G.; Kumar, R.; Kushwaha, M. Salicylic acid and thiourea mitigate the salinity and drought
stress on physiological traits governing yield in pearl millet-wheat. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020,27, 2010. [CrossRef]
204.
Borsani, O.; Valpuesta, V.; Botella, M.A. Evidence for a role of salicylic acid in the oxidative damage generated by NaCl and
osmotic stress in Arabidopsis seedlings. Plant Physiol. 2001,126, 1024–1030. [CrossRef]
205.
Hao, L.; Zhao, Y.; Jin, D.; Zhang, L.; Bi, X.; Chen, H.; Xu, Q.; Ma, C.; Li, G. Salicylic acid-altering Arabidopsis mutants response to
salt stress. Plant Soil 2012,354, 81–95. [CrossRef]
206.
Quilis, J.; Peñas, G.; Messeguer, J.; Brugidou, C.; Segundo, B.S. The Arabidopsis AtNPR1 inversely modulates defense responses
against fungal, bacterial, or viral pathogens while conferring hypersensitivity to abiotic stresses in transgenic rice. Mol. Plant
Microbe Interact. 2008,21, 1215–1231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
207.
Ding, Y.; Sun, T.; Ao, K.; Peng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Opposite roles of salicylic acid receptors NPR1 and NPR3/NPR4 in
transcriptional regulation of plant immunity. Cell 2018,173, 1454–1467.e15. [CrossRef]
208.
Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Salicylic acid: Biosynthesis, perception, and contributions to plant immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.
2019
,50,
29–36. [CrossRef]
209.
Jayakannan, M.; Bose, J.; Babourina, O.; Shabala, S.; Massart, A.; Poschenrieder, C.; Rengel, Z. The NPR1-dependent salicylic acid
signalling pathway is pivotal for enhanced salt and oxidative stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot.
2015
,66, 1865–1875.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 20 of 22
210.
Lotfi, R.; Ghassemi-Golezani, K.; Pessarakli, M. Salicylic acid regulates photosynthetic electron transfer and stomatal conductance
of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) under salinity stress. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020,26, 101635. [CrossRef]
211.
Lee, S.; Kim, S.G.; Park, C.M. Salicylic acid promotes seed germination under high salinity by modulating antioxidant activity in
Arabidopsis.N. Phytol. 2010,188, 626–637. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
212.
Yuan, H.-M.; Liu, W.-C.; Lu, Y.-T. CATALASE2 coordinates SA-mediated repression of both auxin accumulation and JA biosyn-
thesis in plant defenses. Cell Host Microbe 2017,21, 143–155. [CrossRef]
213.
Prodhan, M.Y.; Munemasa, S.; Nahar, M.N.-E.-N.; Nakamura, Y.; Murata, Y. Guard cell salicylic acid signaling is integrated into
abscisic acid signaling via the Ca2+/CPK-dependent pathway. Plant Physiol. 2018,178, 441–450. [CrossRef]
214. Montillet, J.-L.; Hirt, H. New checkpoints in stomatal defense. Trends Plant Sci. 2013,18, 295–297. [CrossRef]
215. Acharya, B.R.; Assmann, S.M. Hormone interactions in stomatal function. Plant Mol. Biol. 2009,69, 451–462. [CrossRef]
216.
Zhu, Y.; Wang, B.; Tang, K.; Hsu, C.-C.; Xie, S.; Du, H.; Yang, Y.; Tao, W.A.; Zhu, J.-K. An Arabidopsis Nucleoporin NUP85
modulates plant responses to ABA and salt stress. PLoS Genet. 2017,13, e1007124. [CrossRef]
217.
Wani, S.; Kumar, V. Plant stress tolerance: Engineering ABA: A Potent phytohormone. Transcriptomics
2015
,3, 1000113. [CrossRef]
218. Zhang, D.-P. Abscisic Acid: Metabolism, Transport and Signaling; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
219.
Roychoudhury, A.; Paul, S.; Basu, S. Cross-talk between abscisic acid-dependent and abscisic acid-independent pathways during
abiotic stress. Plant Cell Rep. 2013,32, 985–1006. [CrossRef]
220.
Vishwakarma, K.; Upadhyay, N.; Kumar, N.; Yadav, G.; Singh, J.; Mishra, R.K.; Kumar, V.; Verma, R.; Upadhyay, R.G.; Pandey, M.;
et al. Abscisic acid signaling and abiotic stress tolerance in plants: A review on current knowledge and future prospects. Front.
Plant Sci. 2017,8, 161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
221.
Raghavendra, A.S.; Gonugunta, V.K.; Christmann, A.; Grill, E. ABA perception and signalling. Trends Plant Sci.
2010
,15, 395–401.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
222.
Balusamy, S.R.; Rahimi, S.; Yang, D.-C. Characterization of squalene-induced PgCYP736B involved in salt tolerance by modulating
key genes of abscisic acid biosynthesis. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019,121, 796–805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
223. Hedrich, R.; Shabala, S. Stomata in a saline world. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2018,46, 87–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
224.
Niu, M.; Xie, J.; Chen, C.; Cao, H.; Sun, J.; Kong, Q.; Shabala, S.; Shabala, L.; Huang, Y.; Bie, Z. An early ABA-induced stomatal
closure, Na+ sequestration in leaf vein and K+ retention in mesophyll confer salt tissue tolerance in Cucurbita species. J. Exp. Bot.
2018,69, 4945–4960. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
225.
Jia, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J. Salt-stress-induced ABA accumulation is more sensitively triggered in roots than in shoots.
J. Exp. Bot. 2002,53, 2201–2206. [CrossRef]
226.
Lu, C.; Chen, M.-X.; Liu, R.; Zhang, L.; Hou, X.; Liu, S.; Ding, X.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, J.; Zhang, J.; et al. Abscisic acid regulates auxin
distribution to mediate maize lateral root development under salt stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2019,10, 716. [CrossRef]
227.
Xing, L.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, J.; Xiang, C.; Zhu, J.-K. The ABA receptor PYL9 together with PYL8 plays an important role in regulating
lateral root growth. Sci. Rep. 2016,6, 27177. [CrossRef]
228. Bano, A.; Aziz, N. Salt and drought stress in wheat and the role of abscisic acid. Pak. J. Bot. 2004,35, 871–884.
229.
El-Enany, A. Abscisic acid-responsive proteins induce salinity tolerance in wheat seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant.
2000
,22, 53.
[CrossRef]
230.
Gurmani, A.; Bano, A.; Salim, M. Effect of abscisic acid and benzyladenine on growth and ion accumulation of wheat under
salinity stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2007,39, 141.
231.
Sripinyowanich, S.; Klomsakul, P.; Boonburapong, B.; Bangyeekhun, T.; Asami, T.; Gu, H.; Buaboocha, T.; Chadchawan, S.
Exogenous ABA induces salt tolerance in indica rice (Oryza sativa L.): The role of OsP5CS1 and OsP5CR gene expression during
salt stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013,86, 94–105. [CrossRef]
232.
Li, X.; Li, S.; Wang, J.; Lin, J. Exogenous abscisic acid alleviates harmful effect of salt and alkali stresses on wheat seedlings. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3770. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
233.
Amzallag, G.; Lerner, H.; Poljakoff-Mayber, A. Exogenous ABA as a modulator of the response of sorghum to high salinity. J. Exp.
Bot. 1990,41, 1529–1534. [CrossRef]
234.
Etehadnia, M.; Waterer, D.R.; Tanino, K.K. The method of ABA application affects salt stress responses in resistant and sensitive
potato lines. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2008,27, 331. [CrossRef]
235.
Brini, F.; Hanin, M.; Lumbreras, V.; Amara, I.; Khoudi, H.; Hassairi, A.; Pagès, M.; Masmoudi, K. Overexpression of wheat
dehydrin DHN-5 enhances tolerance to salt and osmotic stress in Arabidopsis thaliana.Plant Cell Rep.
2007
,26, 2017–2026.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
236.
Deng, X.; Hu, W.; Wei, S.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, F.; Han, J.; Chen, L.; Li, Y.; Feng, J.; Fang, B.; et al. TaCIPK29, a CBL-interacting protein
kinase gene from wheat, confers salt stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco. PLoS ONE 2013,8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
237.
Huang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Jiao, B.; Chen, G.; Huang, S.; Guo, F.; Shen, Y.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, B. Overexpression of the wheat salt
tolerance-related gene TaSC enhances salt tolerance in Arabidopsis.J. Exp. Bot. 2012,63, 5463–5473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
238.
Nemoto, Y.; Sasakuma, T. Differential stress responses of early salt-stress responding genes in common wheat. Phytochemistry
2002,61, 129–133. [CrossRef]
239.
Yang, T.; Yao, S.; Hao, L.; Zhao, Y.; Lu, W.; Xiao, K. Wheat bHLH-type transcription factor gene TabHLH1 is crucial in mediating
osmotic stresses tolerance through modulating largely the ABA-associated pathway. Plant Cell Rep.
2016
,35, 2309–2323. [CrossRef]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 21 of 22
240.
Ambastha, V.; Friedmann, Y.; Leshem, Y. Laterals take it better–emerging and young lateral roots survive lethal salinity longer
than the primary root in Arabidopsis. Sci. Rep. 2020,10, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
241.
Roberts, S.K. Regulation of K+ channels in maize roots by water stress and abscisic acid. Plant Physiol.
1998
,116, 145–153.
[CrossRef]
242.
Zaid, A.; Mohammad, F. Methyl jasmonate and nitrogen interact to alleviate cadmium stress in Mentha arvensis by regulating
physio-biochemical damages and ROS detoxification. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2018,37, 1331–1348. [CrossRef]
243.
Ali, M.; Baek, K.-H. Jasmonic acid signaling pathway in response to abiotic stresses in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci.
2020
,21, 621.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
244.
Arif, Y.; Singh, P.; Siddiqui, H.; Bajguz, A.; Hayat, S. Salinity induced physiological and biochemical changes in plants: An omic
approach towards salt stress tolerance. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020,156, 64–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
245.
Kang, D.J.; Seo, Y.J.; Lee, J.D.; Ishii, R.; Kim, K.U.; Shin, D.H.; Park, S.K.; Jang, S.W.; Lee, I.J. Jasmonic acid differentially affects
growth, ion uptake and abscisic acid concentration in salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive rice cultivars. J. Agron. Crop Sci.
2005
,191,
273–282. [CrossRef]
246.
Pedranzani, H.; Racagni, G.; Alemano, S.; Miersch, O.; Ramírez, I.; Peña-Cortés, H.; Taleisnik, E.; Domenech, E.-M.; Abdala, G.
Salt tolerant tomato plants show increased levels of jasmonic acid. Plant Growth Regul. 2003,41, 149–158. [CrossRef]
247.
Zhang, H.; Zhang, Q.; Zhai, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Liu, Q.; He, S. Transcript profile analysis reveals important roles of jasmonic acid
signalling pathway in the response of sweet potato to salt stress. Sci. Rep. 2017,7, 1–12. [CrossRef]
248.
Zhao, Y.; Dong, W.; Zhang, N.; Ai, X.; Wang, M.; Huang, Z.; Xiao, L.; Xia, G. A wheat allene oxide cyclase gene enhances salinity
tolerance via jasmonate signaling. Plant Physiol. 2014,164, 1068–1076. [CrossRef]
249.
Valenzuela, C.E.; Acevedo-Acevedo, O.; Miranda, G.S.; Vergara-Barros, P.; Holuigue, L.; Figueroa, C.R.; Figueroa, P.M. Salt stress
response triggers activation of the jasmonate signaling pathway leading to inhibition of cell elongation in Arabidopsis primary
root. J. Exp. Bot. 2016,67, 4209–4220. [CrossRef]
250.
Sheteawi, S.A. Improving growth and yield of salt-stressed soybean by exogenous application of jasmonic acid and ascobin. Int. J.
Agric. Biol. 2007,9, 473–478.
251.
Ali, A.Y.A.; Ibrahim, M.E.H.; Zhou, G.; Nimir, N.E.A.; Jiao, X.; Zhu, G.; Elsiddig, A.M.I.; Suliman, M.S.E.; Elradi, S.B.M.; Yue, W.
Exogenous jasmonic acid and humic acid increased salinity tolerance of sorghum. Agron. J. 2020,112, 871–884. [CrossRef]
252.
Yastreb, T.O.; Kolupaev, Y.E.; Shkliarevskyi, M.A.; Dyachenko, A.I.; Dmitriev, A.P. Jasmonate signaling components’ participation
in stomata closing induced by salt sress in Arabidopsis thaliana.Tsitol. Genet. 2020,54, 46–52.
253.
Li, C.; Lv, J.; Zhao, X.; Ai, X.; Zhu, X.; Wang, M.; Zhao, S.; Xia, G. TaCHP: A wheat zinc finger protein gene down-regulated by
abscisic acid and salinity stress plays a positive role in stress tolerance. Plant Physiol. 2010,154, 211–221. [CrossRef]
254. Wang, M.; Xia, G. The landscape of molecular mechanisms for salt tolerance in wheat. Crop J. 2018,6, 42–47. [CrossRef]
255.
Jiang, Y.; Deyholos, M.K. Comprehensive transcriptional profiling of NaCl-stressed Arabidopsis roots reveals novel classes of
responsive genes. BMC Plant Biol. 2006,6, 25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
256. Ma, S.; Gong, Q.; Bohnert, H.J. Dissecting salt stress pathways. J. Exp. Bot. 2006,57, 1097–1107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
257.
Kilian, J.; Whitehead, D.; Horak, J.; Wanke, D.; Weinl, S.; Batistic, O.; D’Angelo, C.; Bauer, E.B.; Kudla, J.; Harter, K. The
AtGenExpress global stress expression data set: Protocols, evaluation and model data analysis of UV-B light, drought and cold
stress responses. Plant J. 2007,50, 347–363. [CrossRef]
258.
Geng, Y.; Wu, R.; Wee, C.W.; Xie, F.; Wei, X.; Chan, P.M.Y.; Tham, C.; Duan, L.; Dinneny, J.R. A spatio-temporal understanding of
growth regulation during the salt stress response in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2013,25, 2132–2154. [CrossRef]
259.
Ebel, C.; BenFeki, A.; Hanin, M.; Solano, R.; Chini, A. Characterization of wheat (Triticum aestivum) TIFY family and role of
Triticum Durum TdTIFY11a in salt stress tolerance. PLoS ONE 2018,13, e0200566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
260.
Khan, M.I.R.; Khan, N.A. Ethylene reverses photosynthetic inhibition by nickel and zinc in mustard through changes in PS II
activity, photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency, and antioxidant metabolism. Protoplasma 2014,251, 1007–1019. [CrossRef]
261. Chang, C. Q&A: How do plants respond to ethylene and what is its importance? BMC Biol. 2016,14, 7.
262.
Lei, G.; Shen, M.; Li, Z.G.; Zhang, B.; Duan, K.X.; Wang, N.; Cao, Y.-R.; Zhang, W.K.; Ma, B.; Ling, H.-Q.; et al. EIN2 regulates salt
stress response and interacts with a MA3 domain-containing protein ECIP1 in Arabidopsis.Plant Cell Environ.
2011
,34, 1678–1692.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
263.
Thao, N.P.; Khan, M.I.R.; Thu, N.B.A.; Hoang, X.L.T.; Asgher, M.; Khan, N.A.; Tran, L.-S.P. Role of ethylene and its cross talk with
other signaling molecules in plant responses to heavy metal stress. Plant Physiol. 2015,169, 73–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
264.
Müller, M.; Munné-Bosch, S. Ethylene response factors: A key regulatory hub in hormone and stress signaling. Plant Physiol.
2015,169, 32–41. [CrossRef]
265.
Sun, X.; Zhao, T.; Gan, S.; Ren, X.; Fang, L.; Karungo, S.K.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, S.; Xin, H. Ethylene positively regulates cold
tolerance in grapevine by modulating the expression of ethylene response factor 057. Sci. Rep.
2016
,6, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
266.
Arraes, F.B.M.; Beneventi, M.A.; de Sa, M.E.L.; Paixao, J.F.R.; Albuquerque, E.V.S.; Marin, S.R.R.; Purgatto, E.; Nepomuceno, A.L.;
Grossi-de-Sa, M.F. Implications of ethylene biosynthesis and signaling in soybean drought stress tolerance. BMC Plant Biol.
2015
,
15, 213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
267.
Habben, J.E.; Bao, X.; Bate, N.J.; DeBruin, J.L.; Dolan, D.; Hasegawa, D.; Helentjaris, T.G.; Lafitte, R.H.; Lovan, N.; Mo, H.;
et al. Transgenic alteration of ethylene biosynthesis increases grain yield in maize under field drought-stress conditions. Plant
Biotechnol. J. 2014,12, 685–693. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Biomolecules 2021,11, 788 22 of 22
268.
Pierik, R.; Tholen, D.; Poorter, H.; Visser, E.J.; Voesenek, L.A. The Janus face of ethylene: Growth inhibition and stimulation.
Trends Plant Sci. 2006,11, 176–183. [CrossRef]
269.
Zapata, P.J.; Serrano, M.; García-Legaz, M.F.; Pretel, M.; Botella, M. Short term effect of salt shock on ethylene and polyamines
depends on plant salt sensitivity. Front. Plant Sci. 2017,8, 855. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
270. Morgan, P.W.; Drew, M.C. Ethylene and plant responses to stress. Physiol. Plant 1997,100, 620–630. [CrossRef]
271.
Li, C.-H.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.-L.; Zhang, L.-Q.; Ai, L.-F.; Han, Y.-F.; Sun, D.-Y.; Zhang, S.-W.; Sun, Y. The receptor-like kinase SIT1
mediates salt sensitivity by activating MAPK3/6 and regulating ethylene homeostasis in rice. Plant Cell
2014
,26, 2538–2553.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
272.
Xu, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, H.; Lei, L.; Yang, H.; Liu, G.; Ren, D. Activation of MAPK kinase 9 induces ethylene and camalexin
biosynthesis and enhances sensitivity to salt stress in Arabidopsis.J. Biol. Chem. 2008,283, 26996–27006. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
273.
Yang, L.; Zu, Y.-G.; Tang, Z.-H. Ethylene improves Arabidopsis salt tolerance mainly via retaining K
+
in shoots and roots rather
than decreasing tissue Na+content. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013,86, 60–69. [CrossRef]
274.
Freitas, V.S.; de Souza Miranda, R.; Costa, J.H.; de Oliveira, D.F.; de Oliveira Paula, S.; de Castro Miguel, E.; Freire, R.S.; Prisco, J.T.;
Gomes-Filho, E. Ethylene triggers salt tolerance in maize genotypes by modulating polyamine catabolism enzymes associated
with H2O2production. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018,145, 75–86. [CrossRef]
275.
Shakeri, S.; Saeid, N.F.; Safipour, A.A. Effect of salicylic acid and ethephon on seed germination and seedling growth of wheat
under salt stress. J. Crop. Ecophysiol. (Agric. Sci.) 2016,10, 779–790.
276.
Cao, W.-H.; Liu, J.; He, X.-J.; Mu, R.-L.; Zhou, H.-L.; Chen, S.-Y.; Zhang, J.-S. Modulation of ethylene responses affects plant
salt-stress responses. Plant Physiol. 2007,143, 707–719. [CrossRef]
277.
Riyazuddin, R.; Verma, R.; Singh, K.; Nisha, N.; Keisham, M.; Bhati, K.K.; Kim, S.T.; Gupta, R. Ethylene: A master regulator of
salinity stress tolerance in plants. Biomolecules 2020,10, 959. [CrossRef]
278.
Lockhart, J. Salt of the earth: Ethylene promotes salt tolerance by enhancing Na/K homeostasis. Am. Soc. Plant Biol.
2013
.
[CrossRef]
279.
Peng, J.; Li, Z.; Wen, X.; Li, W.; Shi, H.; Yang, L.; Zhu, H.; Guo, H. Salt-induced stabilization of EIN3/EIL1 confers salinity
tolerance by deterring ROS accumulation in Arabidopsis.PLoS Genet. 2014,10, e1004664. [CrossRef]
280.
Lang, T.; Deng, C.; Yao, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Deng, S. A salt-signaling network involving ethylene, extracellular ATP, hydrogen
peroxide, and calcium mediates K+/Na+homeostasis in Arabidopsis.Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020,21, 8683. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
281.
Egamberdieva, D. Alleviation of salt stress by plant growth regulators and IAA producing bacteria in wheat. Acta Physiol. Plant
2009,31, 861–864. [CrossRef]
282.
Xu, Z.-S.; Xia, L.-Q.; Chen, M.; Cheng, X.-G.; Zhang, R.-Y.; Li, L.-C.; Zhao, Y.-X.; Lu, Y.; Ni, Z.-Y.; Liu, L.; et al. Isolation and
molecular characterization of the Triticum aestivum L. ethylene-responsive factor 1 (TaERF1) that increases multiple stress tolerance.
Plant Mol. Biol. 2007,65, 719–732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
283.
Rong, W.; Qi, L.; Wang, A.; Ye, X.; Du, L.; Liang, H.; Xin, Z.; Zhang, Z. The ERF transcription factor TaERF 3 promotes tolerance to
salt and drought stresses in wheat. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014,12, 468–479. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
284.
Djemal, R.; Khoudi, H. TdSHN1, a WIN1/SHN1-type transcription factor, imparts multiple abiotic stress tolerance in transgenic
tobacco. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2016,131, 89–100. [CrossRef]
285.
Jang, C.S.; Lee, H.J.; Chang, S.J.; Seo, Y.W. Expression and promoter analysis of the TaLTP1 gene induced by drought and salt
stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Sci. 2004,167, 995–1001. [CrossRef]
286.
Gangadhar, B.H.; Sajeesh, K.; Venkatesh, J.; Baskar, V.; Abhinandan, K.; Yu, J.W.; Prasad, R.; Mishra, R.J. Enhanced tolerance of
transgenic potato plants over-expressing non-specific lipid transfer protein-1 (StnsLTP1) against multiple abiotic stresses. Front.
Plant Sci. 2016,7, 1228. [CrossRef]
287.
Xu, Y.; Zheng, X.; Song, Y.; Zhu, L.; Yu, Z.; Gan, L.; Zhou, S.; Liu, H.; Fujian, W.; Zhu, C. NtLTP4, a lipid transfer protein that
enhances salt and drought stresses tolerance in Nicotiana tabacum. Sci. Rep. 2018,8, 1–14. [CrossRef]
288.
Hu, W.; Yuan, Q.; Wang, Y.; Cai, R.; Deng, X.; Wang, J.; Zhou, S.; Chen, M.; Chen, L.; Huang, C.; et al. Overexpression of a wheat
aquaporin gene, TaAQP8, enhances salt stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco. Plant Cell Physiol.
2012
,53, 2127–2141. [CrossRef]
289.
Ma, Q.; Shi, C.; Su, C.; Liu, Y. Complementary analyses of the transcriptome and iTRAQ proteome revealed mechanism of
ethylene dependent salt response in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Food Chem. 2020. [CrossRef]
290.
Aldrich, S. Epibrassinolide 2021. Available online: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/e1641?lang=en&
region=AU&cm_sp=Insite-_-caSrpResults_srpRecs_srpModel_epibrassinolide-_-srpRecs3-1 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
291.
Smallbon, T. Plant Density, Spacing and Health Underpin Green-Pea Returns. 2018. Available online: https://www.utas.edu.au/
__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1130368/Pea-Project-Fact-Sheet-Season-2-2018.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
292. FAO. Producer Prices 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP (accessed on 20 May 2021).