It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The present study tested the efficacy of 24-epibrassinolide (EBL) and calcium (Ca) for mediating salinity tolerance in tomato. Salinity stress affected the morphological parameters of tomato as well as leaf relative water content (LRWC), photosynthetic and accessory pigments, leaf gas exchange parameters, chlorophyll fluorescence and the uptake of essential macronutrients. The salt (NaCl) treatment induced oxidative stress in the form of increased Na+ ion concentration by 146%, electrolyte leakage (EL) by 61.11%, lipid peroxidation (MDA) 167% and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) content by 175%. Salt stress also enhanced antioxidant enzyme activities including those in the ascorbate–glutathione cycle. Plants treated with EBL or Ca after salt exposure mitigated the ill effects of salt stress, including oxidative stress, by reducing the uptake of Na+ ions by 52%. The combined dose of EBL + Ca reversed the salt-induced changes through an elevated pool of enzymes in the ascorbate–glutathione cycle, other antioxidants (superoxide dismutase, catalase), and osmoprotectants (proline, glycine betaine). Exogenously applied EBL and Ca help to optimize mineral nutrient status and enable tomato plants to tolerate salt toxicity. The ability of tomato plants to tolerate salt stress when supplemented with EBL and Ca was attributed to modifications to enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants, osmolytes and metabolites.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Department of Botany, S.P. College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
2 Plant Production Department, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Biology Department, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
5 Department of Botanical and Environmental Sciences, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India
6 The UWA Institute of Agriculture and School of Agriculture & Environment, The University of Western Australia, LB 5005, Perth, WA, Australia