Effect of Irrigation Water Salinity on Physiological Parameters and
Yield of Tomato Plants Across Phenological Stages
CIHAN KARACA1,*, GULCIN ECE ASLAN1, AHMET KURUNC1, RUHI BAŞTUG1,
ALEJANDRA NAVARRO2, DURSUN BUYUKTAS1
1Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture
Akdeniz University
Pınarbaşı Mahallesi, Konyaaltı/Antalya
TURKİYE
2 Research Centre for Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, Council for Agricultural Research and
Economics (CREA)
Pontecagnano/ Salerno
ITALY
*Correspondence: cihankaraca@akdeniz.edu.tr
Abstract: - This study aimed to investigate the effects of irrigation water salinity on the stomatal conductance
(gs), chlorophyll content index (CCI) and leaf area index (LAI) of tomato plants during four different phenological
stages (vegetative, flowering, early fruit growth, and harvest), at both pre- and post-irrigation. For this purpose,
gs, CCI, and LAI data were collected from tomato plants grown under four different irrigation water salinity
levels including 0.7, 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 dS m−1. Differences in mean gs and CCI data across different irrigation water
salinity levels at various phenological stages were determined using a two-way ANOVA. Differences between
phenological stages within each irrigation salinity level and yield parameter were assessed using one-way
ANOVA. The results indicated that only the gs values averaged over all phenological stages at pre-irrigation was
significantly affected from irrigation water salinity. In general, stomatal conductivity significantly reduced under
water salinity level of 7.5 dS m−1 (P >0.05). On the other hand, significant effects among phenological stages
were observed for both gs and CCI values averaged over all irrigation water salinity levels at both pre- and post-
irrigation (P< 0.01). Considering the end of the growing season, LAI, in general, decreased as irrigation water
salinity increased. The results also reveal that the yield parameters including not marketable, marketable and total
fruit production of tomatoes were not meaningfully affected by irrigation water salinity. The research findings
are believed to contribute to optimizing drip irrigation practices using low-quality waters in tomato cultivation.
Key-Words: - ECe; ECi; leaf area index; plant physiology; yield
Received: April 29, 2024. Revised: September 20, 2024. Accepted: October 23, 2024. Published: November 7, 2024.
1 Introduction
Optimizing irrigation based on water quality is
crucial for agricultural production, particularly for
vegetables grown in greenhouses [1]. The quality of
irrigation water, particularly its salinity, can
significantly affect plant physiology and overall crop
yield [2]. Salinity in irrigation water refers to the
concentration of dissolved salts such as sodium,
chloride, and other ions [3]. Use of saline irrigation
water can cause various physiological challenges for
plants, including ionic and osmotic stress, which
ultimately reduce photosynthesis rates and inhibit
growth [4]. Rapid absorption of ions can lead to their
accumulation within plant cells, negatively affecting
plant-water relationships and reducing relative water
content, water uptake, and transpiration rates [5]. The
effects of irrigation water salinity on plants vary
across different phenological stages [6,7]. During the
early growth stages, high salinity levels in the
irrigation water can hinder seed germination and
seedling establishment [8]. As the plant matures,
saline irrigation can reduce vegetative growth,
disrupt reproductive development, and decrease the
yield. The sensitivity of plants to saline irrigation
water typically depends on soil, climate, crop type
and cultivar [4].
Irrigation method plays a crucial role in
determining the extent and distribution of soil salinity
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
177
Volume 4, 2024
[9]. Various irrigation techniques, such as surface,
sprinkler, and drip irrigation, result in different
patterns of water application and movement within
the soil profile, leading to varying salt accumulation
[10]. In surface irrigation method, water is applied to
the entire field, often resulting in an uneven
distribution and high evaporation rates, leading to the
concentration of salts in specific areas of the root
zone [11]. Although sprinkler irrigation is effective
in removing salt accumulated in the root zone, drip
irrigation is often preferred for species highly
sensitive to leaf necrosis [11]. Drip irrigation,
identified as a potential solution to soil salinity
issues, allows for more precise water application and
targeted leaching of salts from root zones. By
applying water directly to the plant root zone, drip
irrigation minimizes evaporation and promotes
localized leaching of salts, preventing their
accumulation in the root zone [12]. The drip
irrigation method further mitigates the adverse
effects that may arise from the salinity of irrigation
water. Improved irrigation management strategies,
such as selective leaching, use of reclaimed water,
and appropriate soil amendments, can help to reduce
the negative impacts of low quality water on plant
physiology and crop production [13].
Plants exhibit physiological changes at both pre-
and post-irrigation with saline water. Prior to
irrigation, increased salinity can induce stress
responses in plants, such as reduced growth and
altered biochemical processes [14]. Salinity stress at
pre-irrigation can lead to decreased stomatal
conductance and chlorophyll content, affecting the
plant's ability to perform photosynthesis efficiently.
At post-irrigation, plants may experience changes in
nutrient uptake, water balance, and other
physiological functions, as they adapt to saline
conditions [15].
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects
of different irrigation water salinities (0.7, 2.5, 5.0
and 7.5 dS m−1) on plant physiology parameters as
stomatal conductance (gs) and chlorophyll content
index (CCI), in addition to growth (leaf area index
(LAI))and yield parameters of tomato plants at
different phenological stages including vegetative,
flowering, early fruit growth, and harvest at both pre-
and post-irrigation.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Experimental Area
The study was conducted in lysimeters within a
greenhouse at Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
(TR Türkiye, 36°53’ N latitude, 30°38’ E longitude;
12 m above sea level). This Mediterranean-type
greenhouse, featured a gothic roof that was 4 m high
at the gutters and 6 m at the ridge, measuring 9.60 m
in width and 25 m in length. The greenhouse was
oriented in a north-south direction and made of steel,
which was covered with polyethylene. Twelve
lysimeters were used in the study, since this research
aimed to investigate various factors that influenced
tomato seedlings within this controlled environment,
each measuring 2.70 × 1.85 m and a depth of 0.80 m,
consisted of a top layer of 60 cm soil and a bottom
layer of 20 cm gravel.
Figure 1. Greenhouse Temperature, Humidity, and Solar Radiation Values During Different Phenological
Periods
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
178
Volume 4, 2024
Data on greenhouse climatic conditions were
collected from the iMETOS IMT300 climate station
(Pessl Instruments, Weiz, Austria). The climatic
parameters outside the greenhouse were obtained
from the climate station of the Turkish State
Meteorological Service, located 0.3 km away from
the greenhouse.
Greenhouse temperature, humidity, and solar
radiation values measured during different
phenological periods throughout the study are
presented in Figure 1. The soil of lysimeters was
classified as silty-clay loam (51% silt, 28% clay, and
21% sand, with a bulk density of 1.38 g cm−3). At the
beginning of the experiment, electrical conductivity
of saturated soil extract (ECe) was of 0.5 dS m−1.
Field capacity and permanent wilting point were
determined as 31% and 14%, respectively (%vol).
The lysimeter plots were irrigated using a drip
irrigation system. This system was configured so that
each crop row was serviced by a single lateral line
equipped with pressure-compensating drippers,
which discharged water at a rate of 2 L h−1 under a
pressure of 0.1 MPa, with drippers spaced 0.2 m
apart.
Soil moisture content was monitored using
tensiometers (SR Series, Irrometer Company Inc,
Riverside, USA). The tensiometers were placed close
to the lateral pipes, at a distance of 0.10 m from the
drippers, and at a depth of 20 cm. Irrigation was
applied to replenish soil moisture to field capacity
whenever tensiometer readings reached 20 centibars
(cb), indicating a 20% depletion of available water,
at a depth of 0.60 m in the soil profile.
2.2 Treatments and plant material
A comprehensive details of the experimental
design, independent variables, categories, and
statistical analyses is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Overview of experimental design, independent variables, categories, and statistical analyses
The ÖZKAN F1 variety of tomatoes, commonly
cultivated in Antalya, was chosen for this
experiment. Tomato seedlings were planted on
February 28, 2021 in lysimeter plots spaced at
intervals of 0.60 x 0.50 meters, and cultivation ended
on June 28, 2021. Once the seedlings reached a height
of 0.40 meters, they were trained to grow on a single
stem and supported using ropes. Regular removal of
new side shoots was conducted throughout the
growing season. After the plants had developed eight
clusters, the top shoots were pruned. Leaf pruning
followed the method recommended by [16] and local
growers' practices. The plant phenological stages
determined according to the method described by
Allen et al. (1998) [17]. During this period, eight
harvests were conducted on various dates. The
harvested fruits were categorized into three groups:
marketable, not-marketable, and total yields. Not-
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
179
Volume 4, 2024
marketable yield was defined as fruit weighing less
than 180 g and/or exhibiting visible deformities.
In the study, four different irrigation water salinity
levels were selected: S0=0.7 dS m−1 (control), S1= 2.5
dS m−1 (low), S2= 5.0 dS m−1 (medium), and S3= 7.5
dS m−1 (high). For all salinity treatments, the sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) was maintained as close as
possible to that of the tap water source. The desired
electrical conductivity values (ECw) for each
treatment were achieved by adding a mixture of
calculated amounts of calcium chloride, magnesium
sulfate, and sodium chloride salts into the irrigation
water.
2.3 Measurements
Leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content index
(CCI), and stomatal conductance (gs) were measured
for three selected plants in each replication. The leaf
area was determined non-destructively using leaf
width and length, following the method described in
[18]. The LAI was calculated using the Equation 1:
(1)
where LAI is the leaf area index (m² m⁻²), n is the
number of leaves, LAmean is the mean leaf area (m²)
and Ap is the canopy area per plant (m²).
The gs (mmol m⁻² s⁻¹) was measured using an SC-
1 leaf porometer (Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman,
WA, USA) at pre- and post-irrigation between 11:00
a.m. and 2:00 p.m., following the manufacturer’s
instructions. Chlorophyll content index
measurements were obtained using a handheld leaf-
clip CCM-200 meter (Apogee Instruments, Inc.,
North Logan, UT, USA) at pre- and post-irrigation.
2.4 Statistical Analysis
The study was arranged as a randomized complete
block design with three replications, investigating the
effects of four different irrigation water salinity
levels (control, low, moderate, and high) and four
distinct phenological periods of tomatoes (vegetative,
flowering, early fruit growth, and harvest). The mean
differences among the data obtained for stomatal
conductance and CCI at different irrigation water
salinity levels across various phenological stages
were evaluated using two-way ANOVA after
confirming normality and homoscedasticity using
Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, respectively.
Additionally, one-way ANOVA was conducted to
determine differences across phenological stages
within each irrigation salinity level and yield
parameter. Furthermore, multiple comparisons
(LSD) were performed at a significance level of P<
0.05 to further explore these mean differences.
Statistical analyses were conducted using OriginPro
v2024 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA,
USA).
3 Results and Discussion
Statistical analysis results for the effects of
different irrigation water salinity levels (0.7, 2.5, 5.0
and 7.5 dS m-1) on the gs and CCI of tomato plants
during the various phenological stages (vegetative,
flowering, early fruit growth, and harvest) at pre- and
post-irrigation are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Effect of different irrigation water salinities on stomatal conductance gs (mmol m−2 s−1) and chlorophyll
content index (CCI) of tomato at pre- and post-irrigation in different phenological stages.
Treatments
gs (mmol m−2 s−1)
CCI
Pre-irrigation
Post- irrigation
Pre- irrigation
Post irrigation
0.7 dS m−1
367.5 a
384.7
51.4
51.4
2.5 dS m−1
355.7 a
355.0
53.0
48.3
5.0 dS m−1
353.3 a
354.6
50.8
48.9
7.5 dS m−1
323.8 b
327.6
51.5
45.9
Significant level of Salinty (S)
*
ns
ns
ns
Vegetative
365.2 b
367.2 b
63.8 a
63.4 a
Flowering
404.1 a
426.5 a
50.7 b
47.7 b
Early fruit grown
371.1 b
364.9 b
52.3 b
42.4 c
Harvest
259.8 c
263.4 c
39.8 c
41.1 c
Significant level of Phenological stage (PS)
**
**
**
**
S x PS
ns
ns
ns
ns
Values with the same letter or without any letter in the same column are not significantly different (P< 0.05). *, **, and ns,
indicate significant at the P< 0.05, P< 0.01 level, and not significant, respectively.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
180
Volume 4, 2024
It is important to note that the interaction between
irrigation water salinity level and phenological stage
on gs and CCI did not show a significant difference
(P> 0.05). This finding indicates that salinity and
phenological stage independently influence these
parameters. Therefore, the main factor effects were
analyzed separately. Regardless of the phenological
stage, the pre-irrigation gs values ranged from 323.8
to 367.5 mmol m−2 s−1, while the post-irrigation
values ranged from 327.6 to 384.7 mmol m−2 s−1.
However, only pre-irrigation gs values were
significantly (P< 0.05) affected from irrigation water
salinity (Table 1). The highest salinity level of 7.5 dS
m−1 resulted in lower stomatal conductance values
compared to other salinity levels. This showed that
plants responded to only high level of salt stress by
partially closing their stomata to reduce water loss.
Measurements taken at pre- and post-irrigation
indicated that changes in gs were directly related to
plant water uptake and transpiration rate. The closure
of stomata likely helps to protect plants against salt
stress by reducing water loss [19]. This finding
highlights the potential impact of high salinity on
plant growth and productivity. However, post-
irrigation, no significant difference in gs was
observed in relation to the irrigation water salinity.
This indicates that stomata may reopen after
irrigation because of increased water availability,
leading to equalized conductance values.
Additionally, the photosynthetic apparatus has not
yet been damaged by the effect of salinity
(accumulation of salts inside it - toxic effect) [20].
Stomatal control mechanisms are influenced by
various factors, including plant water potential,
atmospheric vapor pressure deficit, light conditions,
and CO2 concentrations [21].
Figure 3. Effect of phenological stages on stomatal conductance (gs) at different irrigation water salinity levels
before and after irrigation. Pre-irrigation data are indicated by lowercase letters in red columns, while post-
irrigation data are indicated by uppercase letters in blue columns. Means sharing the same letter or lacking a letter
within columns were not significantly different (P> 0.05). *, **, and ns, significant at the P< 0.05, P< 0.01 level,
and not significant, respectively. V, F, EFG, and H represent the vegetative, flowering, early fruit growth, and
harvest phenological periods, respectively.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
181
Volume 4, 2024
The effect of different irrigation water salinity
levels on the seasonal average CCI was not
significant, regardless of the phenological stage. In
this study, the use of drip irrigation may have
prevented the full impact of salinity on the
chlorophyll content from being observed.
However, averaged over all irrigation water
salinity levels, different phenological stages
significantly affected both pre- and post-irrigation gs
and CCI at P< 0.01. The highest gs values were
obtained during the flowering stage, reflecting the
plant's high metabolic activity and water demand
during this period [22]. In contrast, the lowest ones
were observed during the harvest stage, indicating
reduced energy requirements and physiological
adjustments to limit water loss. During the vegetative
and early fruit growth stages, stomatal conductance
was lower than that during the flowering stage, but
higher than that during the harvest stage (P< 0.01).
The significant differences among phenological
stages were consistent at both pre- and post-
irrigation, indicating that stomatal activity for
phenological stage averages was influenced by the
phenological stage itself, independent of irrigation
practices and water qualities. At both pre- and post-
irrigation, the CCI exhibited significant differences at
various phenological stages (P< 0.01). The highest
values of this parameter were observed during the
vegetative stage at both pre- and post-irrigation,
reflecting high photosynthetic activity during the
active growth phase of the plant. The lowest values
were observed during the harvest stage at pre-
irrigation, and during both the early fruit growth and
harvest stages at post-irrigation. These results
indicated a chlorophyll loss and, consequently, a
decrease in photosynthetic capacity as a part of the
plant's physiological aging process. Similarly, Wang
et al. (2015) [23] stated that senescence is a highly
regulated process characterized by the active
breakdown of cells, which ultimately leads to the
death of plant organs or whole plants.
As no significant differences were observed
among the interactions, one-way ANOVA was used
to assess the effects of different phenological stages
within each irrigation water salinity level, both before
and after irrigation. This approach enabled a clear
evaluation of the effects of salinity on the different
phenolic stages. Additionally, it allowed for the
identification of phenolic stage-specific responses to
salinity, elucidating how varying salinity levels affect
different stages of plant development and how these
effects differ with irrigation application.
Under irrigation water salinity of 0.7 dS m−1, gs at
pre-irrigation was highest during the flowering
period (423.1 mmol m−2 s−1) and lowest during the
harvest period (301.2 mmol m−2 s−1) (P< 0.01)
(Figure 3). At post-irrigation, the values increased
across all periods, with the flowering period still
exhibiting the highest conductivity. Although the gs
still being at the highest level during the flowering
period, there was no significant difference among the
phenological periods at post-irrigation (P> 0.05).
Under irrigation water salinity of 2.5 dS m−1, stomatal
conductivity at pre-irrigation was the highest (391.1
mmol m−2 s−1) in flowering period, but there was no
significant difference between the vegetative and
early fruit-growing periods. The lowest gs was
observed during the harvest period (291.9 mmol m−2
s−1) for the same salinity level at pre-irrigation. At
post-irrigation, the highest and lowest gs occurred
during the flowering (412.8 mmol m−2 s−1) and
harvest (273.0 mmol m-2 s-1) periods, respectively.
Under irrigation water salinity of 5.0 dS m-1, the
lowest gs at pre- and post-irrigation occurred during
the harvest periods as 227.6.7 and 245.9 mmol m−2
s−1, respectively. Although there was no difference
between the other periods at pre-irrigation, the
highest gs at post-irrigation occurred during the
flowering period (460.1 mmol m−2 s−1). Under
irrigation water salinity of 7.5 dS m−1, there was no
significant difference between the vegetative,
flowering, and early fruit-grown periods at both pre-
and post-irrigation. During the harvest period, the
lowest gs was 218.4 and 225.4 mmol m−2 s−1 at pre-
and post-irrigation, respectively. Statistical
differences among the periods were the same under
all irrigation water salinity treatments except 0.7 dS
m−1. These findings indicate that irrigation water
salinity exerted a similar influence across different
growth stages, with the exception under the control
irrigation water salinity treatment. Additionally, the
harvest period consistently exhibited the lowest
values, suggesting a reduction in metabolic activity
as plants matured.
Under irrigation water salinity of 0.7 dS m-1, the
highest CCI at pre- and post-irrigation was observed
during the vegetative period (64.2 and 68.0,
respectively), while the lowest was observed during
the harvest period (41.5 and 42.5, respectively)
(Figure 4).
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
182
Volume 4, 2024
Figure 4. Effect of phenological stages on chlorophyll content index (CCI) at different irrigation water salinity
levels before and after irrigation. Pre-irrigation data are indicated by lowercase letters in red columns, while post-
irrigation data are indicated by uppercase letters in blue columns. Means sharing the same letter or lacking a letter
within columns were not significantly different (P> 0.05). *, **, and ns, significant at the P< 0.05, P< 0.01 level,
and not significant, respectively. V, F, EFG, and H represent the vegetative, flowering, early fruit growth, and
harvest phenological periods, respectively.
In the control treatment, irrigation application did
not alter the statistical classification of CCI values
among the periods. Under irrigation water salinity of
2.5 dS m−1 treatment, the CCI was highest (66.0) at
pre-irrigation during the vegetative period and lowest
(42.1) during the harvest period. At post-irrigation,
the CCI was still the highest (62.1) during the
vegetative period and similar at pre-irrigation during
the harvest period. Under irrigation water salinity of
5.0 dS m−1 treatment, the highest CCI was observed
during the vegetative period at pre- and post-
irrigation (64.7 and 66.0, respectively), while no
significant difference was observed between all other
periods at post-irrigation. Under irrigation water
salinity of 7.5 dS m−1, the CCI at pre-irrigation was
highest during the vegetative period (60.4) and
lowest during the harvest period (36.3). At post-
irrigation, the vegetative period continued to exhibit
the highest CCI (57.4), whereas the harvest period
remained the lowest (38.3). The vegetative period
consistently demonstrated the highest CCI, reflecting
a high chlorophyll content and photosynthetic
capacity. The harvest period exhibited the lowest
CCI, indicating a decline in the chlorophyll content
as the plants approached maturity.
The LAI changes for the different salinity
treatments during the growing season are given in
Figure 5. Plant development proceeded similarly
under all saline water treatment until the 75th day after
planting (DAP). After that day, leaf pruning resulted
in LAI values ranging from 3.65 to 3.95. Following
the second leaf pruning (DAP 103), the differences
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
183
Volume 4, 2024
between the treatments became apparent. While the
highest numerical LAI under 0.7 dS m−1 occurred at
the end of the growing season, LAI decreased as
irrigation water salinity increased. The effects of
irrigation water salinity on the yield parameters are
presented in Table 2.
Figure 5. Leaf area index (LAI) changes of different salinity treatments during the growing season
Table 2. Effect of irrigation water salinity on different yield parameters
Treatment
Total fruit production
(kg m−2)
Marketable fruit production
(kg m−2)
Not marketable fruit
production
(kg m−2)
0.7 dS m−1
16.4
14.0
2.4
2.5 dS m−1
15.6
13.4
2.2
5.0 dS m−1
15.2
13.1
2.1
7.5 dS m−1
15.5
13.5
2.0
Significant
level
ns
ns
ns
The means indicated with the same letter or without any letter in the same column are not significantly
different (P< 0.05). *, **, and ns, significant at the P< 0.05, P< 0.01 level, and not significant, respectively.
Although irrigation water salinity had a slight
impact on the different yield parameters, the
statistical analysis results indicated that the yield
parameters of tomatoes grown under drip irrigation
were not affected by irrigation water salinity (Table
2). Maggio et al. (2007) [24] investigated the effects
of eight distinct salinity levels (EC = 2.5 (non-
salinized control): 4.2, 6.0, 7.8, 9.6, 11.4, 13.2; 15.0
dS m−1) applied to tomato plants, identifying 9.6 dS
m−1 as the critical threshold, beyond which
significant alterations were noted in various
physiological characteristics, notably affecting
stomatal function and overall crop yield. In drip
irrigation, daily or near-daily irrigation can be
applied at very low rates. As a result of these
irrigation applications, soil water is kept close to field
capacity. Frequent irrigation using this method,
where irrigation efficiency is high, prevents plants
from being affected by both matrix and salt-based
osmotic stress [11]. Furthermore, although salt
accumulation occurs during drip irrigation, as in
other methods, these salts accumulate on the soil
surface between the drippers and on the outer wall of
the wetted area. Consequently, this method has
created a more favorable root zone environment for
plants in terms of water use than other irrigation
methods for low-quality water use. The findings of
this study, as evidenced by the results obtained from
the LAI and yield parameters, align with the
aforementioned information.
4 Conclusion
This study, conducted under different irrigation water
salinity levels, revealed a significant impact of
phenological periods on plant physiological
responses. In greenhouse tomato cultivation using the
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
184
Volume 4, 2024
drip irrigation method, it was found that irrigation
water salinity had no significant effect on CCI and
yield, regardless of the phenological period, and that
differences in plant development were limited. These
results support the conclusion that frequent irrigation
with low-quality water using the drip method reduces
the osmotic effect caused by salt in the plant root
zone by transferring salt accumulation to the outer
edge of the wetted area. Important differences in the
values of gs and CCI were found before and after
irrigation. This finding can be attributed to the
increase in the available water in the plant root zone,
which leads to physiological changes as the plant
rapidly adapts to the prevailing conditions. These
findings are expected to contribute to a better
understanding of agricultural irrigation strategies and
plant physiology, providing valuable insights into
optimal irrigation management using low-quality
water under greenhouse conditions.
References:
[1] J. Zhang, L. Xiang, Y. Liu, D. Jing, L. Zhang,
Y. Liu, W. Li, X. Wang, T. Li, J. Li,
Optimizing irrigation schedules of
greenhouse tomato based on a comprehensive
evaluation model, Agric. Water Manag. 295
(2024) 108741.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108741.
[2] K. Atta, S. Mondal, S. Gorai, A.P. Singh, A.
Kumari, T. Ghosh, A. Roy, S. Hembram, D.J.
Gaikwad, S. Mondal, S. Bhattacharya, U.C.
Jha, D. Jespersen, Impacts of salinity stress on
crop plants: improving salt tolerance through
genetic and molecular dissection, Front. Plant
Sci. 15 (2023) 1241736.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1241736.
[3] A.S. Ayers, D.W. Westcot, Water quality for
agriculture, FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 29, Rome, Italy, 1985.
[4] H. Kim, H. Jeong, J. Jeon, S. Bae, Effects of
irrigation with saline water on crop growth
and yield in greenhouse cultivation, Water 8
(2016) 127.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040127.
[5] T. Balasubramaniam, G. Shen, N. Esmaeili,
H. Zhang, Plants’ response mechanisms to
salinity stress, Plants 12 (2023) 2253.
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122253.
[6] K. Aydinşakir, D. Büyüktaş, N. Dinç, C.
Karaca, Impact of salinity stress on growing,
seedling development and water consumption
of peanut (Arachis hypogea cv. NC-7),
Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg.
28 (2015) 77–84.
[7] G.S. Baath, M.K. Shukla, P.W. Bosland, R.L.
Steiner, S.J. Walker, Irrigation water salinity
influences at various growth stages of
Capsicum annuum, Agric. Water Manag. 179
(2017) 246–253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.028.
[8] C. Uçarlı, Effects of Salinity on Seed
Germination and Early Seedling Stage,
içinde: S. Fahad, S. Saud, Y. Chen, C. Wu, D.
Wang (Ed.), Abiotic Stress Plants,
IntechOpen, London, England, 2021: ss. 1–
27.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93647.
[9] N. Katerji, J.. van Hoorn, A. Hamdy, M.
Mastrorilli, Salinity effect on crop
development and yield, analysis of salt
tolerance according to several classification
methods, Agric. Water Manag. 62 (2003) 37–
66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
3774(03)00005-2.
[10] M.H. Ali, Water Application Methods, içinde:
M.H. Ali (Ed.), Pract. Irrig. On-farm Water
Manag. Vol. 2, Springer, New York, USA,
2011: ss. 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4419-7637-6_2.
[11] M. Zaman, S.A. Shahid, L. Heng, Irrigation
Systems and Zones of Salinity Development,
içinde: M. Zaman, S.A. Shahid, L. Heng
(Ed.), Guidel. Salin. Assessment, Mitig.
Adapt. Using Nucl. Relat. Tech., Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2018: ss. 91–
111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
96190-3_4.
[12] S. Dong, G. Wang, Y. Kang, Q. Ma, S. Wan,
Soil water and salinity dynamics under the
improved drip-irrigation scheduling for
ecological restoration in the saline area of
Yellow River basin, Agric. Water Manag. 264
(2022) 107255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107255.
[13] H. Dehghanisanij, M. Agassi, H. Anyoji, T.
Yamamoto, M. Inoue, A.E. Eneji,
Improvement of saline water use under drip
irrigation system, Agric. Water Manag. 85
(2006) 233–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.05.005.
[14] A. Chadha, S.K. Florentine, B.S. Chauhan, B.
Long, M. Jayasundera, Influence of soil
moisture regimes on growth, photosynthetic
capacity, leaf biochemistry and reproductive
capabilities of the invasive agronomic weed;
Lactuca serriola, PLoS One 14 (2019)
e0218191.
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
185
Volume 4, 2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.021819
1.
[15] S. Ors, M. Ekinci, E. Yildirim, U. Sahin, M.
Turan, A. Dursun, Interactive effects of
salinity and drought stress on photosynthetic
characteristics and physiology of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum L.) seedlings,
South African J. Bot. 137 (2021) 335–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.10.031.
[16] M.İ. Ildır, H. Aktaş, Effect of different type of
pruning on the yield and quality of
greenhouse tomato production (In Turkish),
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilim.
Enstitüsü Derg. 22 (2018) 1241–1248.
https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufenbed.501476.
[17] R.G. Allen, L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, M. Smith,
Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements, FAO,
Roma, Italy, 1998.
[18] C. Karaca, D. Buyuktas, S. Sehir,
Determination of leaf area of some vegetable
plants grown under greenhouse condition by
non-destructive methods, Hortic. Stud. 38
(2021) 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.16882/hortis.841745.
[19] Y. Lu, W. Fricke, Salt stress—Regulation of
root water uptake in a whole-plant and
dDiurnal context, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24 (2023)
8070. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24098070.
[20] A. Navarro, S. Bañon, E. Olmos, M.J.
Sánchez-Blanco, Effects of sodium chloride
on water potential components, hydraulic
conductivity, gas exchange and leaf
ultrastructure of Arbutus unedo plants, Plant
Sci. 172 (2007) 473–480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2006.10.00
6.
[21] P. Petrík, A. Petek-Petrik, M. Mukarram, B.
Schuldt, L.J. Lamarque, Leaf physiological
and morphological constraints of water-use
efficiency in C3 plants, AoB Plants 15 (2023)
PMC10407996.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plad047.
[22] I.E. Henson, V. Mahalakshmi, G.
Alagarswamy, F.R. Bidinger, The effect of
flowering on stomatal response to water stress
in pearl millet ( Pennisetum americanum [L.]
Leeke), J. Exp. Bot. 35 (1984) 219–226.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/35.2.219.
[23] J. Wang, D. Leister, C. Bolle, Photosynthetic
lesions can trigger accelerated senescence in
Arabidopsis thaliana, J. Exp. Bot. 66 (2015)
6891–6903.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv393.
[24] A. Maggio, G. Raimondi, A. Martino, S. De
Pascale, Salt stress response in tomato beyond
the salinity tolerance threshold, Environ. Exp.
Bot. 59 (2007) 276–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.02.
002.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
For research articles with several authors, a short
paragraph specifying their individual contributions
must be provided. The following statements should
be used “Conceptualization, D.B., C.K., A.K. and
A.N.; methodology, D.B., R.B., C.K., and G.E.A;
software, C.K.; validation, C.K., G.E.A., D.B. and
A.K.; formal analysis, C.K. and G.E.A.;
investigation, C.K., G.E.A. and D.B.; resources,
D.B., R.B. and A.N.; data curation, C.K. and A.K.;
writing—original draft preparation, C.K.; writing—
review and editing, D.B., A.K., G.E.A., R.B., A.N.
and C.K.; and visualization, C.K. and G.E.A.;
supervision, D.B.; project administration, D.B., and
A.N.; funding acquisition, D.B., and A.N. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript..
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This research was funded by the Partnership for
Research and Innovation in the Mediter-ranean Area
(PRIMA) project: iGUESS-MED “Innovative
Greenhouse Support System in the Mediterranean
Region: efficient fertigation and pest management
through IoT based climate control”. Grant
Agreement number: 1916. The PRIMA program is
supported by the European Union under the Horizon
2020 Framework for Research and Innovation.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
EARTH SCIENCES AND HUMAN CONSTRUCTIONS
DOI: 10.37394/232024.2024.4.22
Cihan Karaca, Gulcin Ece Aslan,
Ahmet Kurunc, Ruhi Baştug, Alejandra Navarro,
Dursun Buyuktas
E-ISSN: 2944-9006
186
Volume 4, 2024
