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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Physiological response of selected ornamental shrubs under salinity stress

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.15325
Submitted
29 April 2026
Published
13-07-2026

Abstract

Salinity stress significantly affects plant growth, development and ornamental value, especially in coastal and peri-urban landscaping. This study evaluated the physiological and biochemical responses of four ornamental shrubs, Eranthemum pulchellum Andrews, Leucophyllum frutescens (Berland.) I.M.Johnst., Acalypha wilkesiana Müll.Arg. and Tabernaemontana divaricata (L.) R.Br. ex-Roem. & Schult. under varying levels of salinity (0, 20, 40 and 60 dS m-1) using sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2) in a 7 : 3 ratio under open-field conditions. Salinity significantly affected physiological and biochemical traits except leaf pH. Increasing salinity caused progressive reductions in chlorophyll a (Chl-a), chlorophyll b (Chl-b), total chlorophyll content, chlorophyll stability index (CSI), membrane stability index (MSI) and relative water content (RWC), while leaf electrical conductivity (EC) and total phenolic content (TPC) increased. Among the evaluated shrubs, L. frutescens exhibited superior salinity tolerance, maintaining total chlorophyll (0.16 mg g-1 FW), CSI (43.58 %), MSI (9.10 %) and RWC (58.64 %) at 60 dS m-1. In contrast, T. divaricata was highly susceptible, recording 96 % reduction in total chlorophyll and MSI and a 57 % reduction in RWC at 60 dS m-1. Eranthemum pulchellum and A. wilkesiana showed moderate physiological stability up to 20 dS m-1, indicating mild salinity tolerance, but exhibited substantial declines at higher salinity levels. Total phenolic content increased with salinity, reaching 1.89 mg GAE g-1 FW in P2 at 60 dS m-1, indicating enhanced antioxidant defence. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that the first three components explained 92.73 % of the total variation, with chlorophyll content, membrane stability and water status contributing most strongly to salinity tolerance. The study identifies L. frutescens as a highly salt-tolerant ornamental shrub suitable for coastal landscaping.

References

  1. 1. Singh KN, Chatrath R. Salinity tolerance. In: Reynalds MP, Ortiz-Monasterio I, McNab A, editors. Application of physiology in wheat breeding. Mexico: CIMMYT; 2001. p. 101–10.
  2. 2. Dagar JC. Salinity research in India: an overview. Bull Natl Inst Ecol. 2005;15:69–80.
  3. 3. Munns R. Physiological processes limiting plant growth in saline soils: some dogmas and hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ. 1993;16(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00840.x
  4. 4. Mazher AA, El-Quesni EF, Farahat MM. Responses of ornamental plants and woody trees to salinity. 2007.
  5. 5. Villarino GH, Mattson NS. Assessing tolerance to sodium chloride salinity in fourteen floriculture species. Hort Technology. 2011;21(5):539–45. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.21.5.539
  6. 6. Carter CT, Grieve CM, Poss JA, Suarez DL. Production and ion uptake of Celosia argentea irrigated with saline wastewaters. Sci Hortic. 2005;106(3):381–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2005.04.007
  7. 7. Alaswad AA. Transcriptomic landscapes of ornamental plants under salt and drought stress: key genes and pathways for tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1703649. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1703649
  8. 8. Aruna P, Kathari L. Physiological studies and nutrient analysis on the suitability of Clerodendrum inermi, Leucophyllum frutescens and Acalypha hispida shrubs under salinity. Int J Chem Stud. 2018.
  9. 9. Valdez-Aguilar LA, Grieve CM, Razak-Mahar A, McGiffen ME, Merhaut DJ. Growth and ion distribution affected by saline irrigation in landscape species. HortScience. 2011;46(4):632–42. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.46.4.632
  10. 10. Vanlalruati VA, Kumar GU, Tiwari A. Effect of saline stress on chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium) germplasm. Indian J Agric Sci. 2019;89(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i1.86102
  11. 11. Bañón S, Fernández JA, Ochoa J, Sánchez-Blanco MJ. Paclobutrazol reduces salt stress effects in oleander seedlings. Eur J Hortic Sci. 2005;70:43–9. https://doi.org/10.1079/ejhs.2005/27633
  12. 12. Cassaniti C, Leonardi C, Flowers TJ. Effects of sodium chloride on ornamental shrubs. Sci Hortic. 2009;122(4):586–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.06.032
  13. 13. Francois LE, Clark RA. Salt tolerance of ornamental shrubs, trees and iceplant. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1978;103(2):280–3. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.103.2.280
  14. 14. Picchioni GA, Graham CJ. Salinity effects on Crataegus opaca. Sci Hortic. 2001;90(1–2):151–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(00)00261-2
  15. 15. de Oliveira EV, de Lacerda CF, Neves AL, Gheyi HR, Oliveira DR, de Oliveira FI, et al. A new method to evaluate salt tolerance of ornamental plants. Theor Exp Plant Physiol. 2018;30(3):173–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-018-0112-7
  16. 16. Arnon DI. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Plant Physiol. 1949;24(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.24.1.1
  17. 17. Sairam RK, Deshmukh PS, Shukla DS. Tolerance of drought and temperature stress in wheat. J Agron Crop Sci. 1997;178(3):171–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1997.tb00486.x
  18. 18. Barrs HD, Weatherley PE. Relative turgidity technique for estimating water deficits. Aust J Biol Sci. 1962;15(3):413–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/BI9620413
  19. 19. Singleton VL, Rossi JA Jr. Colorimetry of total phenolics. Am J Enol Vitic. 1965;16(3):144–58. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1965.16.3.144
  20. 20. Deivasigamani P, Vijayakumar RM, Balakrishnan S, Arulmozhiselvan K, Sivakumar R. Salt stress effects on mango rootstocks. Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6(5):387–9.
  21. 21. Wang ZW, Li G, Liu M, Cheng X, Li LL, Li RZ, et al. Transcriptional reprogramming in mung bean under salt stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2025;25:1343. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-07281-4
  22. 22. Ullah F, Ayaz A, Saqib S, Parmar G, Bahadur S, Zaman W. Leaf epidermal anatomy of Scrophulariaceae. Microsc Res Tech. 2021;84(3):521–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23608
  23. 23. Trivellini A, Carmassi G, Scatena G, Vernieri P, Ferrante A. Salt stress responses in Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. Mol Hortic. 2023;3(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43897-023-00075-y
  24. 24. Ferdosi MF, Shoaib A, Habib S, Khan KA. Salicylic acid mitigates salt stress in Gladiolus grandiflorus. Sci Rep. 2021;11:15597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95243-9
  25. 25. Kumar D, Al Hassan M, Naranjo MA, Agrawal V, Boscaiu M, Vicente O. Salinity effects on oleander physiology. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0185017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185017
  26. 26. Santos CV. Salt stress effects on chlorophyll biosynthesis in sunflower. Sci Hortic. 2004;103(1):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2004.04.009
  27. 27. Fornes F, Belda RM, Carrión C, Noguera V, García-Agustín P, Abad M. Saline water pre-conditioning improves drought tolerance. Sci Hortic. 2007;113(1):52–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2007.01.008
  28. 28. Mollanejad M, Jabbarzadeh Z. Salinity tolerance strategies in Alstroemeria. Sci Rep. 2026.
  29. 29. Zahra N, Al Hinai MS, Hafeez MB, Rehman A, Wahid A, Siddique KHM, et al. Photosynthesis under salt stress. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2022;178:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.03.003
  30. 30. Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA, Zhu JK, Bohnert HJ. Plant responses to salinity. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 2000;51:463–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.51.1.463
  31. 31. Gull A, Lone AA, Wani NU. Abiotic and biotic stresses in plants. In: Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants. London: IntechOpen; 2019.
  32. 32. Parida AK, Das AB. Salt tolerance in plants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2005;60(3):324–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010
  33. 33. Ghosh D, Das T, Paul P, Dua TK, Roy S. Zinc nanoparticles mitigate salinity stress in wheat. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2024;211:108693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.108693
  34. 34. Kafi M, Nabati J, Masoumi AL, Mehrgerdi MZ. Salinity and silicon effects on sorghum oxidative damage. Pak J Bot. 2011;43(5):2457–62.
  35. 35. Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:651–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
  36. 36. Tamilselvan I, Velu P, Thangaiah A, Gunasekaran Y, Nedunchezhiyan V, Kathirvel SK, et al. Tomato physiological responses to drought. Plant Sci Today. 2024. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.3874
  37. 37. Zhu JK. Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 2001;6(2):66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01838-0
  38. 38. Ashraf M, Harris PJC. Biochemical indicators of salinity tolerance. Plant Sci. 2004;166(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2003.10.024
  39. 39. Xu L, Wang X. Phenolic compounds in horticultural plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(12):5767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26125767
  40. 40. Mohagheghian B, Saeidi G, Arzani A. Phenolics and oxidative stress in barley under drought. BMC Plant Biol. 2025;25:709. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06750-0
  41. 41. Gill SS, Tuteja N. Reactive oxygen species in abiotic stress tolerance. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2010;48(12):909–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016
  42. 42. Lu H, Sun M, Ma Y, Si M, Xie J, Wang Z, et al. Foliar pH variation along water gradient. Catena. 2022;216:106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106408
  43. 43. Alzahrani Y. Salinity and drought tolerance in soybean. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1466363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1466363
  44. 44. Al Khallaf H, Rashad HM, Alsamadany H. Biofertilizers mitigate salinity stress in wheat. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1697160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1697160
  45. 45. de Souza ER, Schaffer B, Vargas AI, de Camargo Santos A, Rodriguez EA. Salinity effects in papaya. CABI Agric Biosci. 2024;5(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-024-00216-3
  46. 46. Patwa N, Pandey V, Gupta OP, Yadav A, Meena MR, Ram S, et al. Salinity stress tolerance in wheat. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:875. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05508-4

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.