Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 249–255 | Cite as

Comparison of Salinity Tolerance in Geographically Diverse Collections of Thellungiella Accessions

  • Mhemmed GandourEmail author
  • Jihed Gharred
  • Wael Taamalli
  • Chedly Abdelly


Salinity is a serious problem all over the world with an average of 830 M ha being affected. In order to investigate the screening attributes that can be used to determine early growth stage sensitivity of Thellungiella plants to salt stress, 8 Thellungiella genotypes were grown in pots containing fine sand as growth medium and subjected to five different salinity levels, i.e. 0, 200, 300 and 400 and 500 mM of NaCl. Thirteen phenotypic and physiologic traits related to vegetative growth were evaluated for their responses to salinity stress. Co-relating the different parameters; T. botschantzevii and T. halophila shown to be more tolerant than T. salsuginea. When comparing ecotypes within T. salsuginea, Altai 1 and Altai 2 ecotypes were identified as salt tolerant, Tuva and Buriatia were classified as salt sensitive and the more popular ecotype “shandong” as moderately tolerant. Furthermore, results show that salt susceptible ecotypes treated at 500 mM NaCl had 7 folds higher proline than that of tolerant genotypes treated under similar concentration. These finding indicate the potential for selecting plants or traits with improved salt tolerance within that species. Method used allows detection plants or traits within enhanced salinity tolerance after 2 months of growth for the ability to grow at salt concentration that prevents the growth of other plants.


Thellungiella salinity screening ecotypes morpho-physiological traits 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We are grateful to Prof Bert De Boer from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for providing us the Thellun-giella collection.


  1. 1.
    FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy: Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch Communication Div., 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashraf, M. and Harris, P.J.C., Abiotic Stresses Plant Resistance through Breeding and Molecular Approaches, New York: Haworth Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirali, N., El-Khouri, S., and Rizq, F., Genetic diversity and relationships in some Vicia species as determined by SDS-PAGE of seed proteins, Biol. Plant., 2007, vol. 51, pp. 660–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sreenivasulu, N., Grimm, B., Wobus, U., and Weschke, W., Differential response of antioxidant compounds to salinity stress in salt-tolerant and salt sensitive seedlings of foxtail millet (Setaria italica), Physiol. Plant., 2000, vol. 109, pp. 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaya, C., Kirnak, H., and Higgs, D., Effects of supplementary potassium and phosphorus on physiological development and mineral nutrition of cucumber and pepper cultivars grown at high salinity (NaCl), J. Plant Nutr., 2001, vol. 24, pp. 1457–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaya, C., Kirnak, H., and Higgs, D., Enhancement of growth and normal growth parameters by foliar application of potassium and phosphorus on tomato cultivars grown at high (NaCl) salinity, J. Plant Nutr., 2001, vol. 24, pp. 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaya, C., Higgs, D., and Saker, E., Response of two leafy vegetables growth at high salinity to supplementary potassium and phosphorus during different growth stages, J. Plant Nutr., 2002, vol. 25, pp. 2663–2676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jumberi, A., Oka, M., and Fujiyama, H., Response of vegetable crops to salinity and sodicity in relation to ionic balance and ability to absorb microelements, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 2002, voll. 48, pp. 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baba, T. and Fujiyama, H., Short-term response of rice and tomato to NaCl stress in relation to ion transport, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 2003, vol. 49, pp. 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopez-Aguilar, R., Orduno-Cruz, V., Lucero-Arce, A., Murillo-Amador B., and Troyo-Dieguez, E., Response to salinity of three grain legumes for potential cultivation in arid areas, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 2003, vol. 49, pp. 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gandour, M., Neji, M., Hessini, K., Smida, M., Abdelly, C., and Taamalli, W., Assessing the salt tolerance of Sulla carnosa genotypes by agronomic indicators, Agron. J., 2014, vol. 106, pp. 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jamil, M. and Rha, E.S., Effect of different water table treatments on cabbage in saline Saemangeum soil, in Salinity and Water Stress, Ashraf, M., Ozturk, M., and Athar, H.R., Eds., Springer Nature Switzerland, 2009, pp. 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein, E., The anomaly of silicon in plant biology, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 1994, vol. 91, pp. 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bates, L., Waldren, R.P., and Teare, I.D., Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies, Plant Soil, 1973, vol. 39, pp. 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amtmann, A., Learning from evolution: Thellungiella generates new knowledge on essential and critical components of abiotic stress tolerance in plants, Mol. Plant., 2009, vol. 2, pp. 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bressan, R., Bohnert, H., and Zhu, J.K., Abiotic stress tolerance: From gene discovery in model organisms to crop improvement, Mol. Plant., 2009, vol. 2, pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amtmann, A., Bohnert, H.J., and Bressan, R.A., Abiotic stress and plant genome evolution: Search for new models, Plant Physiol., 2005, vol. 138, pp. 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein, E. and Jefferies, R.L., The genetic basis of selective ion transport in plants, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol., 1964, vol. 15, pp. 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Epstein, E. and Rains, D., Advances in salt tolerance, Plant Soil, 1987, vol. 99, pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNeilly, T., Selection and breeding for salinity tolerance in crop species. A case of optimism?, Acta Ecol., 1990, vol. 11, pp. 595–610.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shannon, M.C., Genetic approaches for developing economic salt-tolerant crops, in Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management, Tanji, K.K., Ed., New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1990, pp. 161–185.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munns, R., Hare, R.A., James, R.A., and Rebetzke, G.J., Genetic variation for improving the salt tolerance of durum wheat, Aust. J. Agric. Res., 2000, vol. 51, pp. 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guo, Z.G., Liu, H.X., Wang, S.M., Tian, F.P., and Cheng, G.D., Biomass, persistence, and drought resistance of nine lucerne varieties in the dry environment of west China, Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 2005, vol. 45, pp. 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mhemmed Gandour
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jihed Gharred
    • 1
  • Wael Taamalli
    • 2
  • Chedly Abdelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Extremophile PlantsCenter of Biotechnology of Borj-CédriaHammam LifTunisia
  2. 2.Laboratory of Olive BiotechnologyCenter of Biotechnology of Borj-CédriaHammam LifTunisia
  3. 3.Faculty of Sciences and Technology of Sidi BouzidUniversity of Kairouan KairouanKairouanTunisia

Personalised recommendations