Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp9 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Stress-resilient dryland cereals: A review on mechanisms of drought and salinity tolerance

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12333
Submitted
17 October 2025
Published
05-11-2026

Abstract

Millets and sorghum, considered as dryland cereals are particularly known for their capability to grow in adverse environments. The tolerance mechanisms to major abiotic stressors remain fragmented across physiological, biochemical and molecular studies. This review aims to scrutinise and synthesise the major tolerance mechanisms that millets perform under drought and saline stress. Published evidence on stress perception, physiological adjustment, biochemical defence and molecular regulation was reviewed and integrated. Drought tolerance mechanisms are primarily associated with osmotic adjustment, root system modification, osmoprotectant accumulation and stress-responsive signalling, which includes calcium-dependent protein kinases and mitogen-activated protein kinases. Salinity tolerance involves osmotic adjustment, ion homeostasis, the salt overly sensitive (SOS) pathway and microbe-mediated stress tolerance. Stress tolerance results from the coordinated maintenance of water status through physiological, biochemical and molecular processes. Importantly, high osmotic adjustment alone does not result in high productivity, whereas root development is important for sustained growth and yield. Rhizosphere interactions further contribute to alleviating stress by modifying plant water relations and ionic balance. The increasing demand for nutrient-dense crops, coupled with climate change-induced stress factors, necessitates the promotion of naturally stress-resistant plants to ensure food security and yield stability. Millets and sorghum exhibit resilience to various abiotic stresses, yet they remain underutilised due to limited awareness and cultivation efforts. This review highlights the need for functional gene validation, physiological-omics-based approaches and an understanding of the relationship between molecular responses and yield maintenance of crops under field stress to aid the development of climate-resilient dryland cereals.

References

  1. 1. Kumar A, Tripathi MK, Joshi D, Kumar V. Millets and millet technology. Nature. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0676-2
  2. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Better land, soil and water management key to feeding 10 billion people, FAO warns. 2025.
  3. 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC; 2023. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
  4. 4. Galieni A, D'Ascenzo N, Stagnari F, Pagnani G, Xie Q, Pisante M. Past and future of plant stress detection: An overview from remote sensing to positron emission tomography. Front Plant Sci. 2021;11:609155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.609155
  5. 5. Saleem S, Mushtaq NU, Shah WH, Rasool A, Hakeem KR, Rehman RU. Morpho-physiological, biochemical and molecular adaptation of millets to abiotic stresses: A review. Phyton-Int J Exp Bot. 2021;90(5):1363–85. https://doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2021.014826
  6. 6. Zhang H, Li Y, Zhu JK. Developing naturally stress-resistant crops for a sustainable agriculture. Nat Plants. 2018;4(12):989–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0309-4
  7. 7. Taylor JRN. Sorghum and millets: Taxonomy, history, distribution and production. In: Taylor JRN, Duodu KG, editors. Sorghum and millets. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Woodhead Publishing; 2019. p. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811527-5.00001-0
  8. 8. Chivenge P, Mabhaudhi T, Modi AT, Mafongoya P. The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(6):5685–711. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120605685
  9. 9. Karunaratne AS, Wimalasiri EM, Esham M, Mabhaudhi T, Jahanshiri E. Editorial: Crop modelling - underutilized crops for climate-smart agrifood system. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024;8:1305909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1305909
  10. 10. Imathiu S. Neglected and underutilized cultivated crops with respect to indigenous African leafy vegetables for food and nutrition security. J Food Secur. 2021;9(3):115–25. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-9-3-4
  11. 11. Yesuph DS, Dalka DD, Baye TM. Underutilized and neglected crop species and their role in enhancing household food security amid climate change, Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. Heliyon.2025;11(3):e42345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42345
  12. 12. Lichtenthaler HK. Vegetation stress: An introduction to the stress concept in plants. J Plant Physiol. 1996;148(1-2):4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(96)80277-X
  13. 13. Umar OB, Ranti LA, Abdulbaki AS, Bola AL, Abdulhamid AK, Biola MR, et al. Stresses in plants: Biotic and abiotic. In: Ansari MR, editor. Current trends in wheat research. London: IntechOpen; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100501
  14. 14. Levitt J. Stress and strain terminology. In: Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Volume I: Chilling, freezing and high temperature stresses. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 1980. p. 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-445501-6.50006-3
  15. 15. Kalita CK. Plant stress physiology - A comprehensive account. Bione E-Zine Biol Sci. 2023;(22):5–8.
  16. 16. Kul R, Ekinci M, Turan M, Ors S, Yildirim E. How abiotic stress conditions affect plant roots. In: Yildirim E, Turan M, Ekinci M, editors. Plant roots. London: IntechOpen; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95286
  17. 17. Ben-Ari G, Lavi U. Marker-assisted selection in plant breeding. In: Altman A, Hasegawa PM, editors. Plant biotechnology and agriculture. San Diego: Academic Press; 2012. p. 163–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381466-1.00011-0
  18. 18. He Q, Tang S, Zhi H, Zheng L, Liu Y, Zhang H, et al. A graph-based genome and pan-genome variation of the model plant Setaria. Nat Genet. 2023;55(7):1232–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01423-w
  19. 19. Chen J, Liu Y, Liu M, Xu Y, Li L, Wang Y, et al. Pangenome analysis reveals genomic variations associated with domestication traits in broomcorn millet. Nat Genet. 2023;55(12):2243–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01571-z
  20. 20. Lu Q, Zhao H, Zhang Z, Wang H, Chen X, Sun Y, et al. Genomic variation in weedy and cultivated broomcorn millet accessions uncovers the genetic architecture of agronomic traits. Nat Genet. 2024;56(5):1006–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01718-6
  21. 21. Kuijer HNJ, Wang JY, Bougouffa S, Al-Babili S, Schläppi MR, Blilou I, et al. Chromosome-scale pearl millet genomes reveal CLAMT1b as key determinant of strigolactone pattern and Striga susceptibility. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):6906. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51189-w
  22. 22. Zhang T, Huang W, Zhang L, Li DZ, Qi J, Ma H. Phylogenomic profiles of whole-genome duplications in Poaceae and landscape of differential duplicate retention and losses among major Poaceae lineages. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):3305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47428-9
  23. 23. Li X, Gao J, Song J, Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhao B, et al. Multi-omics analyses of 398 foxtail millet accessions reveal genomic regions associated with domestication, metabolite traits and anti-inflammatory effects. Mol Plant. 2022;15(8):1367–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2022.07.003
  24. 24. Bandyopadhyay T, Maurya J, Bentley AR, Griffiths H, Swarbreck SM, Prasad M. Identification of the mechanistic basis of nitrogen responsiveness in two contrasting Setaria italica accessions. J Exp Bot. 2024;75(16):5008–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erae204
  25. 25. Jaiswal V, Bandyopadhyay T, Singh RK, Gahlaut V, Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Multi-environment GWAS identifies genomic regions underlying grain nutrient traits in foxtail millet (Setaria italica). Plant Cell Rep. 2023;43(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03127-1
  26. 26. Kumar V, Singh B, Kumar SR, Sharma N, Muthamilarasan M, Sawant SV, et al. Histone deacetylase 9 interacts with SiHAT3.1 and SiHDA19 to repress dehydration responses through H3K9 deacetylation in foxtail millet. J Exp Bot. 2024;75(4):1098–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erad425
  27. 27. Ramu P, Srivastava RK, Sanyal A, Gupta R, Singh VP, Varshney RK, et al. Improved pearl millet genomes representing the global heterotic pool offer a framework for molecular breeding applications. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):902. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05258-3
  28. 28. Gautam RC, Bana RS. Drought in India: Its impact and mitigation strategies - A review. Indian J Agron. 2014;59(2):179–90. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v59i2.4544
  29. 29. Tiwari A, Kesarwani K, Sharma A, Ghosh T, Bisht N, Punetha S. Drought stress in millets and its response mechanism. In: Kimatu JN, editor. Advances in plant defense mechanisms. London: IntechOpen; 2022. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105942
  30. 30. Seleiman MF, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, et al. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants. 2021;10(2):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020259
  31. 31. Yang X, Lu M, Wang Y, Wang Y, Liu Z, Chen S. Response mechanism of plants to drought stress. Horticulturae. 2021;7(3):50. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7030050
  32. 32. Du Y, Zhao Q, Chen L, Yao X, Zhang W, Zhang B, et al. Effect of drought stress on sugar metabolism in leaves and roots of soybean seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2020;146:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.11.003
  33. 33. Guo PR, Wu LL, Wang Y, Liu D, Li JA. Effects of drought stress on the morphological structure and flower organ physiological characteristics of Camellia oleifera flower buds. Plants.2023;12(13):2585. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132585
  34. 34. Galindo A, Collado-González J, Griñán I, Corell M, Centeno A, Martín-Palomo MJ, et al. Deficit irrigation and emerging fruit crops as a strategy to save water in Mediterranean semiarid agrosystems. Agric Water Manag. 2018;202:311–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.08.015
  35. 35. Álvarez S, Rodríguez P, Broetto F, Sánchez-Blanco MJ. Long term responses and adaptive strategies of Pistacia lentiscus under moderate and severe deficit irrigation and salinity: Osmotic and elastic adjustment, growth, ion uptake and photosynthetic activity. Agric Water Manag. 2018;202:253–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.01.006
  36. 36. Tekle AT, Alemu MA. Drought tolerance mechanisms in field crops. World J Biol Med Sci. 2016;3(1):15–39.
  37. 37. Kinhal V. Understanding drought resistance strategies: A guide to plant adaptation [Internet]. CID Bio-Science; 2026. Available from: https://cid-inc.com/blog/understanding-drought-resistance-strategies-a-guide-to-plant-adaptation/
  38. 38. Tiwari S, Lata C, Chauhan PS, Prasad V, Prasad M. A functional genomic perspective on drought signalling and its crosstalk with phytohormone-mediated signalling pathways in plants. Curr Genomics. 2017;18(6):469–82. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202918666170605083319
  39. 39. Azhar MT, Rehman A. Overview on effects of water stress on cotton plants and productivity. In: Wani SH, editor. Biochemical, physiological and molecular avenues for combating abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Academic Press; 2018. p. 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813066-7.00016-4
  40. 40. Tiwari A, Rastogi A, Singh V, Arunachalam A. Water stress effects on nutritional values and relative water content of barnyard and finger millet crops. Int J Agric Sci. 2019;10(1):23–8.
  41. 41. Hasanuzzaman M, Bhuyan MHMB, Zulfiqar F, Raza A, Mohsin SM, Mahmud JA, et al. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under abiotic stress: Revisiting the crucial role of a universal defense regulator. Antioxidants. 2020;9(8):681. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9080681
  42. 42. Shivhare R, Asif MH, Lata C. Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals the genes and pathways involved in terminal drought tolerance in pearl millet. Plant Mol Biol. 2020;103(6):639–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-020-01015-w
  43. 43. Wang G, Long Y, Jin X, Yang Z, Dai L, Yang Y, et al. SbMYC2 mediates jasmonic acid signaling to improve drought tolerance via directly activating SbGR1 in sorghum. Theor Appl Genet. 2024;137(3):72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-024-04578-0
  44. 44. Jin X, Zheng Y, Wang J, Chen W, Yang Z, Chen Y, et al. SbNAC9 improves drought tolerance by enhancing scavenging ability of reactive oxygen species and activating stress-responsive genes of sorghum. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(3):2401. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032401
  45. 45. Yan H, Sun M, Zhang Z, Jin Y, Lin C, Luo L, et al. Pangenomic analysis identifies structural variation associated with heat tolerance in pearl millet. Nat Genet. 2023;55(3):507–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01302-4
  46. 46. Meena RP, Ghosh G, Vishwakarma H, Padaria JC. Expression of a Pennisetum glaucum gene DREB2A confers enhanced heat, drought and salinity tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. Mol Biol Rep. 2022;49(8):7347–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07527-6
  47. 47. Reddy PS, Dhaware MG, Sivasakthi K, Divya K, Nagaraju M, Cindhuri SK, et al. Pearl millet aquaporin gene PgPIP2;6 improves abiotic stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:820996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.820996
  48. 48. Singh RK, Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Biotechnological approaches to dissect climate-resilient traits in millets and their application in crop improvement. J Biotechnol. 2021;327:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2021.01.002
  49. 49. Jamra G, Agarwal A, Singh N, Sanyal SK, Kumar A, Pandey GK. Ectopic expression of finger millet calmodulin confers drought and salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Rep. 2021;40(11):2205–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-021-02743-z
  50. 50. Zhang Y, Xiao T, Yi F, Yu J. SiMicroRNA396d targets SiGRF1 to regulate drought tolerance and root growth in foxtail millet. Plant Sci. 2023;326:111492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2022.111492
  51. 51. Singh RK, Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. SiHSFA2e regulated expression of SisHSP21.9 maintains chloroplast proteome integrity under high temperature stress. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2022;79(11):580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-022-04611-9
  52. 52. Zhang S, Yu Y, Song T, Zhang M, Li N, Yu M, et al. Genome-wide identification of foxtail millet's TRX family and a functional analysis of SiNRX1 in response to drought and salt stresses in transgenic Arabidopsis. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:946037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.946037
  53. 53. Mukami A, Ngetich A, Mweu C, Oduor RO, Muthengya M, Mbinda WM. Differential characterization of physiological and biochemical responses during drought stress in finger millet varieties. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2019;25(4):837–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-019-00679-z
  54. 54. Matsuura A, Tsuji W, An P, Inanaga S, Murata K. Effect of pre- and post-heading water deficit on growth and grain yield of four millets. Plant Prod Sci. 2012;15(4):323–31. https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.15.323
  55. 55. Seghatoleslami MJ, Kafi M, Majidi E. Effect of drought stress at different growth stages on yield and water use efficiency of five proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) genotypes. Pak J Bot. 2008;40(4):1427–32.
  56. 56. Choudhury S, Moulick D, Ghosh D, Soliman M, Alkhedaide A, Gaber A, et al. Drought-induced oxidative stress in pearl millet (Cenchrus americanus L.) at seedling stage: Survival mechanisms through alteration of morphophysiological and antioxidants activity. Life. 2022;12(8):1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12081171
  57. 57. Khatoon H, Singh V. Impact of water stress on physiological and biochemical parameters of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). Res Environ Life Sci. 2016;9(12):1474–7.
  58. 58. Zhang A, Ji Y, Sun M, Lin C, Zhou P, Ren J, et al. Research on the drought tolerance mechanism of Pennisetum glaucum (L.) in the root during the seedling stage. BMC Genomics. 2021;22(1):711. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07888-5
  59. 59. Ajithkumar IP, Panneerselvam R. ROS scavenging system, osmotic maintenance, pigment and growth status of Panicum sumatrense Roth. under drought stress. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;68(3):587-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-013-9746-x
  60. 60. Sakakibara H, Takei K, Sugiyama T. Isolation and characterization of a cDNA that encodes maize uroporphyrinogen III methyltransferase, an enzyme involved in the synthesis of siroheme, which is a prosthetic group of nitrite reductase. Plant J. 1996;10(5):883–92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1996.10050883.x
  61. 61. Xue D, Zhang X, Lu X, Chen G, Chen ZH. Molecular and evolutionary mechanisms of cuticular wax for plant drought tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00621
  62. 62. Ranathunge K, Schreiber L. Water and solute permeabilities of Arabidopsis roots in relation to the amount and composition of aliphatic suberin. J Exp Bot. 2011;62(6):1961–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq389
  63. 63. Debieu M, Sine B, Passot S, Grondin A, Akata E, Gangashetty P, et al. Response to early drought stress and identification of QTLs controlling biomass production under drought in pearl millet. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205011
  64. 64. Murali M, Singh SB, Gowtham HG, Shilpa N, Prasad M, Aiyaz M, et al. Induction of drought tolerance in Pennisetum glaucum by ACC deaminase producing PGPR-Bacillus amyloliquefaciens through antioxidant defense system. Microbiol Res. 2021;253:126891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2021.126891
  65. 65. Parvathi MS, Nataraja KN, Yashoda BK, Ramegowda HV, Mamrutha HM, Rama N, et al. Expression analysis of stress responsive pathway genes linked to drought hardiness in an adapted crop, finger millet (Eleusine coracana). J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2013;22(2):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-012-0135-0
  66. 66. Parvathi MS, Nataraja KN, Reddy YAN, Naika MBN, Gowda MVC. Transcriptome analysis of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.) reveals unique drought responsive genes. J Genet. 2019;98(2):46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-019-1087-0
  67. 67. Assefa Y, Staggenborg SA, Prasad VPV. Grain sorghum water requirement and responses to drought stress: A review. Crop Management. 2010;9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1094/CM-2010-1109-01-RV
  68. 68. Machado RMA, Serralheiro RP. Soil salinity: Effect on vegetable crop growth. Management practices to prevent and mitigate soil salinization. Horticulturae. 2017;3(2):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae3020030
  69. 69. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). FAO launches first major global assessment of salt-affected soils in 50 years. 2021.
  70. 70. Carillo P, Annunziata MG, Pontecorvo G, Fuggi A, Woodrow P. Salinity stress and salt tolerance. In: Shanker A, Venkateswarlu B, editors. Abiotic stress in plants - Mechanisms and adaptations. London: IntechOpen; 2011. p. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.5772/22331
  71. 71. Srividhya SR, Swarna J, Jinu C, Dheeraj, Talwar HS. Salinity stress in pearl millet: From physiological to molecular responses. In: Pearl millet in the 21st century. Singapore: Springer; 2024. p. 361–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5890-0_14
  72. 72. Stavi I, Thevs N, Priori S. Soil salinity and sodicity in drylands: A review of causes, effects, monitoring and restoration measures. Front Environ Sci. 2021;9:712831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.712831
  73. 73. Rasool S, Hameed A, Azooz MM, Siddiqi TO, Ahmad P. Salt stress: Causes, types and responses of plants. In: Ahmad P, Azooz MM, Prasad MNV, editors. Ecophysiology and responses of plants under salt stress. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4747-4_1
  74. 74. Tarolli P, Luo J, Park E, Barcaccia G, Masin R. Soil salinization in agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation strategies combining nature-based solutions and bioengineering. iScience.2024;27(2):108830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.108830
  75. 75. Reshna OP, Beena R. Salinity tolerance mechanism in rice. Indian J Agric Res. 2021;56(6):631–8. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-5760
  76. 76. Feng D, Gao Q, Liu J, Tang J, Hua Z, Sun X. Categories of exogenous substances and their effect on alleviation of plant salt stress. Eur J Agron. 2023;142:126656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2022.126656
  77. 77. Shahid MA, Sarkhosh A, Khan N, Balal RM, Ali S, Rossi L, et al. Insights into the physiological and biochemical impacts of salt stress on plant growth and development. Agronomy. 2020;10(7):938. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10070938
  78. 78. Ghatak A, Chaturvedi P, Nagler M, Roustan V, Lyon D, Bachmann G, et al. Comprehensive tissue-specific proteome analysis of drought stress responses in Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br. (Pearl millet). J Proteomics. 2016;143:122–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2016.02.032
  79. 79. Sen S, Kundu S, Dutta SK. Proteomic analysis of JAZ interacting proteins under methyl jasmonate treatment in finger millet. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2016;108:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.05.033
  80. 80. Rengasamy P, North S, Smith A. Diagnosis and management of sodicity and salinity in soil and water in the Murray Irrigation region. Technical Report. 2010. ISBN: 0975013440.
  81. 81. Zhu JK. Genetic analysis of plant salt tolerance using Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2000;124(3):941–8. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.124.3.941
  82. 82. Gustin MC, Albertyn J, Alexander M, Davenport K. MAP kinase pathways in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998;62(4):1264–300. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.62.4.1264-1300.1998
  83. 83. Liu J, Ishitani M, Halfter U, Kim CS, Zhu JK. The Arabidopsis thaliana SOS2 gene encodes a protein kinase that is required for salt tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97(7):3730–4. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.7.3730
  84. 84. Shi H, Ishitani M, Kim C, Zhu JK. The Arabidopsis thaliana salt tolerance gene SOS1 encodes a putative Na+/H+ antiporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97(12):6896–901. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.120170197
  85. 85. Qiu QS, Guo Y, Dietrich MA, Schumaker KS, Zhu JK. Regulation of SOS1, a plasma membrane Na+/H+ exchanger in Arabidopsis thaliana, by SOS2 and SOS3. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(12):8436–41. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122224699
  86. 86. Audipudi AV, Vadithe TB, Singode A, Usha TN, Dikshit N, Malathi MV, et al. Molecular mechanism of salt tolerance in millets - A review. Forage Res. 2023;48(4):430–4.
  87. 87. Parihar P, Singh S, Singh R, Singh VP, Prasad SM. Effect of salinity stress on plants and its tolerance strategies: A review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(6):4056–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3739-1
  88. 88. Nawaz Z, Kakar KU, Saand MA, Shu QY. Cyclic nucleotide-gated ion channel gene family in rice, identification, characterization and experimental analysis of expression response to plant hormones, biotic and abiotic stresses. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:853. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-853
  89. 89. Numan M, Bashir S, Khan Y, Mumtaz R, Shinwari ZK, Khan AL, et al. Plant growth promoting bacteria as an alternative strategy for salt tolerance in plants: A review. Microbiol Res. 2018;209:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2018.02.003
  90. 90. Ilangumaran G, Smith DL. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in amelioration of salinity stress: A systems biology perspective. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01768
  91. 91. Zawoznik MS, Ameneiros M, Benavides MP, Vázquez S, Groppa MD. Response to saline stress and aquaporin expression in Azospirillum-inoculated barley seedlings. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;90(4):1389–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-011-3162-1
  92. 92. Marulanda A, Azcón R, Chaumont F, Ruiz-Lozano JM, Aroca R. Regulation of plasma membrane aquaporins by inoculation with a Bacillus megaterium strain in maize (Zea mays L.) plants under unstressed and salt-stressed conditions. Planta. 2010;232(2):533–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-010-1196-8
  93. 93. Salomon MV, Bottini R, De Souza Filho GA, Cohen AC, Moreno D, Gil M, et al. Bacteria isolated from roots and rhizosphere of Vitis vinifera retard water losses, induce abscisic acid accumulation and synthesis of defense-related terpenes in in vitro cultured grapevine. Physiol Plant. 2014;151(4):359–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12117
  94. 94. Cohen AC, Bottini R, Pontin M, Berli FJ, Moreno D, Boccanlandro H, et al. Azospirillum brasilense ameliorates the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to drought mainly via enhancement of ABA levels. Physiol Plant. 2015;153(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12221
  95. 95. Safdarian M, Askari H, Shariati JV, Nematzadeh G. Transcriptional responses of wheat roots inoculated with Arthrobacter nitroguajacolicus to salt stress. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1792. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38398-2
  96. 96. Upadhyay SK, Singh JS, Singh DP. Exopolysaccharide-producing plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria under salinity condition. Pedosphere. 2011;21(2):214–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60120-3
  97. 97. Mishra P, Mishra J, Arora NK. Plant growth promoting bacteria for combating salinity stress in plant-Recent developments and prospects: A review. Microbiol Res. 2021;252:126861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2021.126861
  98. 98. Mushtaq NU, Saleem S, Rasool A, Shah WH, Hakeem KR, Rehman RU. Salt stress threshold in millets: Perspective on cultivation on marginal lands for biomass. Phyton-Int J Exp Bot.2020;90(1):51–64. https://doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2020.012163
  99. 99. Singh NK, Bracker CA, Hasegawa PM, Handa AK, Buckel S, Hermodson MA, et al. Characterization of osmotin: A thaumatin-like protein associated with osmotic adaptation in plant cells. Plant Physiol. 1987;85(2):529–36. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.85.2.529
  100. 100. Thomas JC, Bohnert HJ. Salt stress perception and plant growth regulators in the halophyte Mesembryanthemum crystallinum. Plant Physiol. 1993;103(4):1299–304. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.4.1299
  101. 101. Hurkman WJ, Tao HP, Tanaka CK. Germin-like polypeptides increase in barley roots during salt stress. Plant Physiol. 1991;97(1):366–74. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.97.1.366
  102. 102. Yamada S, Takeoka A, Yamanouchi M. 22Na+ and 36Cl- mobility in salinized excised leaves of several crop plants. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2002;48(1):23–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2002.10409167
  103. 103. Dure L, Greenway SC, Galau GA. Developmental biochemistry of cottonseed embryogenesis and germination: Changing messenger ribonucleic acid populations as shown by in vitro and in vivo protein synthesis. Biochemistry. 1981;20(14):4162–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00517a033
  104. 104. Bhardwaj R, Sharma I, Kanwar M, Sharma R, Handa N, Kaur H, et al. LEA proteins in salt stress tolerance. In: Ahmad P, Azooz MM, Prasad MNV, editors. Salt stress in plants. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 79–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6108-1_5
  105. 105. Maurel C, Verdoucq L, Luu DT, Santoni V. Plant aquaporins: Membrane channels with multiple integrated functions. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:595–624. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092734
  106. 106. Zheng H, Gao Y, Sui Y, Dang Y, Wu F, Wang X, et al. R2R3 MYB transcription factor SbMYBHv33 negatively regulates sorghum biomass accumulation and salt tolerance. Theor Appl Genet. 2023;136(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-023-04292-3
  107. 107. Song Y, Zheng H, Sui Y, Li S, Wu F, Sun X, et al. SbWRKY55 regulates sorghum response to saline environment by its dual role in abscisic acid signaling. Theor Appl Genet. 2022;135(8):2609–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-022-04130-y
  108. 108. Sun M, Yan H, Zhang A, Jin Y, Lin C, Luo L, et al. Millet: A multi-omics database to accelerate the research of functional genomics and molecular breeding of millets. Plant Biotechnol J. 2023;21(11):2348–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14136
  109. 109. Xu C, Luo M, Sun X. SiMYB19 from foxtail millet (Setaria italica) confers transgenic rice tolerance to high salt stress in the field. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(2):756. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23020756
  110. 110. Zhang P, Wang B, Guo Y, Wang T, Wei Q, Luo Y, et al. Identification of drought-resistant response in proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) root through physiological and transcriptomic analysis. Plants. 2024;13(12):1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13121693
  111. 111. Qazi M, Gupta SK, Takano T, Tsugama D. Overexpression of a pearl millet WRKY transcription factor gene, PgWRKY74, in Arabidopsis retards shoot growth under dehydration and salinity-stressed conditions. Biotechnol Lett. 2024;46(5):851–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-024-03492-1
  112. 112. Mahadik S, Kumudini BS. Enhancement of salinity stress tolerance and plant growth in finger millet using fluorescent pseudomonads. Rhizosphere. 2020;15:100226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100226
  113. 113. Theerthana T, Sowmyalatha BS, Krupashree R. Performance of finger millet under salt affected soil. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(3):176–80.
  114. 114. Apolinar AB, Vara LEG, Pimentel GR, Cesar L, Mancilla A, Iturriaga G, et al. Silicon induces changes in the antioxidant system of millet cultivated in drought and salinity. Chil J Agric Res. 2021;81(4):648–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392021000400655
  115. 115. Meng Y, Yin Q, Yan Z, Wang Y, Niu J, Zhang J, et al. Exogenous silicon enhanced salt resistance by maintaining K+/Na+ homeostasis and antioxidant performance in alfalfa leaves. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01183
  116. 116. Lashari MS, Mangan BN, Rajpur I, Ali M, Jogi MS, Sial TA. Effect of salt stress on growth and biochemical properties of little millet (Panicum miliare L.). Pak J Bot. 2022;54(5):1611–5. https://doi.org/10.30848/PJB2022-5(32)
  117. 117. Bipin KB, Rajesh D, Raghu R, Jeevanandhan K. Salinity stress tolerance mechanism in proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) revealed by physio-biochemical analysis under different salt concentration. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(7):864–9.
  118. 118. Ullah Z, Inzimam S, Haq U, Ullah A, Asghar MA, Seleiman MF, et al. Effect of green synthesized silver nanoparticles on growth and physiological responses of pearl millet under salinity stress. Environ Dev Sustain. 2025;27(1):625–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05453-0
  119. 119. Zhang Y, Linghu J, Wang D, Liu XL, Yu A, Li F, et al. Foxtail millet CBL4 (SiCBL4) interacts with SiCIPK24, modulates plant salt stress tolerance. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2017;35(5):634–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-017-1051-1
  120. 120. Yan J, Yang L, Liu YA, Zhao Y, Han T, Miao X, et al. Calcineurin B-like protein 5 (SiCBL5) in Setaria italica enhances salt tolerance by regulating Na+ homeostasis. Crop J. 2022;10(1):234–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2021.06.006
  121. 121. Zhao Z, Tang S, Li W, Yang X, Wang R, Diao X, et al. Overexpression of a brassinazole resistant 1 homolog attenuates drought tolerance by suppressing the expression of plethora-like 1 in Setaria italica. Crop J. 2021;9:1208–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2021.02.006
  122. 122. Shaikh SS, Gore NT, Mali AA, Umdale SD, Mundada PS, Barvkar VT, Ahire ML. Enhancing salinity stress tolerance in finger millet [Eleusine coracana L. (Gaertn.)] through silicon supplementation: A study on seed germination, seedling growth and antioxidant response. J Crop Health. 2024;76(5):1235-1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-024-01018-3
  123. 123. Shreshta N, Hu H, Shreshtha K, Doust AN. Pearl millet response to drought: A review. Front Plant Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1059574
  124. 124. Xiao F, Zhou H. Plant salt response: Perception, signaling and tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2023;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1053699

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.