Next Article in Journal
Does Green Investment Affect Enterprises’ New Quality Productivity Forces? Evidence from A-Share Listed Companies in China
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Source Data Integration for Safety Evaluation of Walking Tourism Routes: Coupling Spatial Analysis of Attractiveness and Carrying Capacity in Macao
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 4
10.3390/su18041986
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Decision Matrix–Guided Framework for Screening Plant Species for Sustainable Phytoremediation of Road Salt–Contaminated Roadside Soils

by
Leif van Lierop
,
Yuanhang Zhan
and
Bo Hu
*
Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1390 Eckles Ave, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(4), 1986; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041986
Submission received: 15 January 2026 / Revised: 9 February 2026 / Accepted: 11 February 2026 / Published: 14 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart Technologies and Digital Methods for Advanced Environmental Remediation)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The widespread application of road deicing salts in northern regions has led to elevated salinity in roadside soils and adjacent watersheds. Phytoremediation offers a cost-effective and sustainable approach for mitigating salt contamination, but its success depends on utilizing plant species that can both tolerate and remove salt under roadside conditions. To systematically identify high-potential candidates from the large inventory of salt-tolerant plants in North America, we developed a quantitative decision matrix incorporating criteria related to ecological safety, establishment potential on disturbed soils, aboveground biomass production, biomass use-value, and salt uptake capacity. Thirteen of the highest-ranked species were subsequently evaluated for sodium (Na+) and chloride (Cl−) uptake in a controlled greenhouse study under saline and non-saline conditions. The greatest total salt uptake was observed in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) (35.6 mg Na+ and 100.2 mg Cl− plant−1) and pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri) (18.6 mg Na+ and 76.0 mg Cl− plant−1), while perennial species including tall fescue turfgrass (Lolium arundinaceum), showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), and weeping alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans) also demonstrated substantial uptake combined with greater long-term suitability for roadside management. Overall, this study presents a quantitative framework for phytoremediation species selection and provides experimental evidence supporting both annual and perennial species for mitigating deicing salt contamination through environmentally sustainable, low-input roadside management strategies.

1. Introduction

High salt loads from road deicing practices are contributing to increasing salinity in soils and freshwater systems in cold climate regions worldwide [1]. In North America, states like Minnesota (MN) apply road salt extensively each winter for traffic safety, resulting in chronic salt inputs to roadside environments and adjacent watersheds [2]. Road salt applied to roadways reaches freshwater systems via meltwater runoff and groundwater infiltration [3]. Once mobilized, salt can move through the environment via surface runoff, infiltration, subsurface flow, and groundwater pathways [4].
Chloride (Cl−), the primary anion in most road salts, readily dissociates in melting snow and stormwater. It is difficult to precipitate and easily leaches into lakes, rivers, and groundwater, where it can damage aquatic ecosystems [5]. In the Twin Cities Metro Area (TCMA), lake salinity has been shown to correlate with the amount of rock salt purchased by the State of MN and the percent of impervious surfaces in surrounding watersheds [6]. In 2024, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency listed 67 water bodies impaired by chloride, up from 54 two years earlier, based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chronic Cl− limit of 230 mg L−1 [7]. Many more lakes in the Northeast and Midwest are predicted to exceed this threshold within the next few decades if current trends continue [8].
Salt also accumulates in soils adjacent to roadways. Monitoring of a vegetated highway ditch in the TCMA showed that over 95% of applied Cl− infiltrated into the soil, with less than 5% exported as surface runoff [9]. Depending on soil characteristics and precipitation patterns, Cl− can continue leaching from roadside soils for 2.5 to 5 months after application [10]. Sodium (Na+), a principal cation in road salt, often binds to negatively charged soil particles, contributing to elevated and persistent concentrations [11]. High Na+ levels can reduce soil pore size, limiting root penetration, water availability, and nutrient uptake, ultimately diminishing soil stability and fertility [12]. Na+ can also displace essential macronutrients such as calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg+), and potassium (K+) from soil [13].
Elevated salinity negatively impacts plants by causing osmotic stress, which reduces water uptake and limits photosynthesis [14]. Salinity also induces the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that damage cellular structures, including membranes and DNA [15]. At toxic levels, Na+ and Cl− cause visible injury such as leaf scorching, chlorosis, and necrosis [16]. Some plant species, however, have evolved strategies to cope with salinity, including salt exclusion, osmotic adjustment, ion compartmentalization, and salt excretion [17,18]. Salt-tolerant species are therefore important candidates for remediation efforts. Research at the University of Minnesota, for example, has focused on identifying salt-tolerant turfgrasses suitable for roadside environments [19].
Approaches to managing salt-contaminated soils include chemical amendments, organic amendments, leaching, and deep tilling, but these techniques can be disruptive, expensive, or impractical at large scales [13,20]. Phytoremediation offers a low-cost, low-impact alternative in which plants extract contaminants from soil and store them in aboveground tissues that can be harvested and removed [21,22]. This strategy improves soil health through increased carbon inputs and enhanced soil-aggregate stability, promoting better drainage and root growth [23]. Additionally, salt uptake by plants reduces leaching into groundwater, and harvested biomass may provide supplemental economic value [24,25,26]. Phytoremediation is often slow and limited to the rooting depth of plants [27], though it has been successfully applied to soils contaminated with metals, organic pollutants, and salts [28,29,30,31].
Several studies have examined plant species for phytoremediation of deicing salt [30,32,33,34]. For example, Mann et al. [34] demonstrated that native Canadian Atriplex species could extract on the order of 8–28 g Cl− m−2 per growing season, indicating that phytoremediation can meaningfully reduce salt accumulation in roadside soils under favorable conditions. However, no comprehensive effort has been made to systematically inventory and evaluate the large number of salt-tolerant plant species available in North America. With more than 200 halophytes and numerous additional salt-tolerant non-halophytes occurring across inland and coastal regions [35], species selection remains a critical bottleneck in developing phytoremediation systems for roadside soils.
Effective species selection for roadside salt phytoremediation requires consideration of multiple criteria beyond salt tolerance alone, including ecological safety, establishment potential on disturbed soils, biomass production, and the feasibility of long-term roadside management. Multi-criteria decision matrices have previously been applied to guide plant selection for phytoremediation, such as for heavy metal–contaminated soils, but these approaches have typically relied on literature-derived rankings and have not focused specifically on salt remediation in roadside environments [36].
To address this gap, this study developed a comprehensive decision matrix to quantitatively evaluate salt-tolerant plant species based on criteria directly relevant to roadside salt phytoremediation. These criteria included ecological safety, establishment potential on disturbed soils, biomass yield, biomass use value, and salt uptake capacity. This matrix allowed for quantitative comparison among species and facilitated the selection of high-priority candidates for experimental testing. The highest-scoring species were then evaluated in a controlled greenhouse study to assess their salt uptake under saline irrigation conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Decision Matrix Development

2.1.1. Species Inventory and Data Sources

Candidate species for screening were first compiled into a comprehensive Salt-Tolerant Plant Species Inventory. Halophytic species were identified using the eHALOPH Halophytes Database [37] and cross-referenced with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database to determine which species were native to or commonly occurring in Minnesota [38]. To ensure local feasibility, additional moderately and highly salt-tolerant species known to establish successfully in Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) roadside seed mixes were included. This produced an inventory emphasizing species with documented occurrence or establishment success in disturbed roadside soils within the TCMA.

2.1.2. Decision Matrix Criteria and Scoring Framework

A quantitative decision matrix was developed to systematically screen salt-tolerant plant species for their suitability in roadside phytoremediation applications. The matrix was designed to integrate both phytoremediation performance and practical feasibility for roadside deployment. Five criteria were evaluated for each species: (1) ecological safety, (2) establishment + biomass yield, (3) salt uptake potential, (4) biomass value, and (5) life cycle. All criteria were scored on a standardized 0–10 scale and multiplied by weighting factors to reflect their relative importance. Criteria definitions, scoring ranges, and weights are shown in Table S1. The final matrix score for each species was calculated as the weighted sum of all criteria.

2.1.3. Ecological Safety, Biomass Value, and Life Cycle Scoring

The ecological safety criterion evaluated the ecological risk associated with sowing a species outside of cultivation, with emphasis on invasive or weedy potential in Minnesota and surrounding regions. Scores ranged from 0 to 10, with higher values assigned to native or non-invasive species and lower values assigned to agricultural weeds or known invasive species. Species considered noxious or globally invasive received the lowest scores. Ecological safety scores were based primarily on the USDA Plants Database and supporting literature, with condensed justifications and references provided in Table S2 [38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
The biomass value criterion assessed the potential utility of harvested aboveground biomass independent of yield magnitude. Scores reflected documented or plausible uses such as forage, feed, bioenergy, food, or other beneficial applications. Species with high-value, well-established uses received higher scores, while species with limited or no documented uses received lower scores. Biomass value scores and supporting justifications with references are presented in Table S2 [38,40,41,42,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56].
Life cycle scoring reflected plant longevity and persistence, emphasizing suitability for long-term roadside management and early-season salt uptake during snowmelt periods. Annual species received the lowest scores, while long-lived perennial species received the highest scores. Intermediate values were assigned to biennial and moderate-lived perennial species. Life cycle classifications and scores were derived from the USDA Plants Database and are summarized in Table S2 [38].

2.1.4. Establishment + Biomass Yield Scoring

Establishment and biomass yield were combined into a single composite criterion to represent both the likelihood of successful establishment on disturbed roadside soils and the capacity to generate harvestable aboveground biomass once established. This composite score was calculated using Equation (1) below:
Establishment + Yield = 0.6 * (Establishment score) + 0.4 * (Biomass yield score)
The establishment score reflected germination success, seedling vigor, competitiveness, and tolerance of roadside disturbance, including variability in soil moisture and nutrient availability. Establishment scores ranged from 0 to 10 and were assigned using a standardized rubric, informed by literature descriptions of roadside occurrence, growth characteristics, and ecological amplitude (Table S3) [34,38,39,40,43,57,58,59].
The biomass yield score represented expected aboveground dry biomass production under low-input, disturbed, or stressed conditions representative of roadside environments. Literature-reported yield values were compiled for each species, prioritizing studies conducted without intensive fertilization, irrigation, or weed control when available. A single representative yield value was assigned per species using conservative assumptions, and yields were categorized into tiers corresponding to yield scores from 0 to 10. Detailed justifications, yield contexts, and scores are provided in Table S3 [46,51,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].

2.1.5. Salt Uptake Potential Scoring

Salt uptake potential estimated a species’ capacity to remove Na+ and Cl− from soil via accumulation in harvestable aboveground biomass. This criterion was based on literature-reported Na+ and Cl− concentrations in shoot tissue, expressed as the combined Na+ + Cl− concentration (mg g−1 dry mass). When species-specific data were unavailable, conservative alternative values were assigned using averages from taxonomically or functionally similar species. Studies conducted under extreme salinity that caused severe biomass suppression were excluded from direct scoring to avoid overestimating uptake potential under realistic roadside conditions.
Salt uptake scores were calculated by dividing the combined Na+ + Cl− concentration by 20 to produce a 0–10 scale. All tissue concentration values, assumptions, references, and resulting scores are provided in Table S4 [61,64,65,72,74,76,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88].

2.1.6. Weighting and Final Matrix Score

Each decision matrix criterion was multiplied by a weighting factor to reflect its relative importance in identifying plant species suitable for roadside salt phytoremediation. Weighting factors were assigned according to defined remediation priority preferences, emphasizing criteria most critical for sustainable roadside implementation. This approach follows established multi-criteria decision analysis frameworks used in phytoremediation, where weights are selected to align species rankings with project-specific objectives rather than relying on single attribute performance [36].
Weighting factors were selected to balance remediation effectiveness with ecological safety and practical feasibility for roadside management. Salt uptake potential was assigned a high weight (2.5) due to its direct relevance to the primary objective of the study: removal of Na+ and Cl− from contaminated soils. Establishment potential, including biomass yield, received the highest overall weight (3) because successful remediation requires both reliable establishment on disturbed roadside soils and sufficient biomass production to enable meaningful salt removal. Ecological safety was weighted at two to ensure that species with high invasive or weedy potential were appropriately penalized, reflecting the ecological risks associated with roadside seeding. Life cycle was assigned a moderate weight (1.5) to emphasize the importance of long-term persistence and early-season salt uptake, particularly during spring snowmelt, while avoiding over-penalization of high-performing annual species. Biomass use-value received a lower weight (1) to acknowledge potential secondary benefits of harvested biomass without allowing economic considerations to dominate remediation performance. While weights were selected to reflect roadside remediation priorities relevant to this study, the framework is adaptable and weights can be adjusted for different regions or management objectives while maintaining a consistent evaluation structure.
Final matrix scores were calculated as the sum of all weighted criterion scores. Higher total scores indicate species that best balance salt uptake potential, establishment feasibility, ecological safety, and practical utility for roadside phytoremediation applications.

2.2. Greenhouse Screening Experiment

A subset of highly ranked species was subsequently evaluated in controlled greenhouse experiments, allowing matrix-based rankings to be compared with experimentally measured Na+ and Cl− uptake.

2.2.1. Experimental Design

Seeds of each species were germinated in trays containing germination mix potting soil (Sun Gro Horticulture, Agawam, MA, USA). Due to interspecies differences in germination timing and early growth rates, seedlings were maintained in germination trays for variable durations prior to transplanting, ranging from approximately 9 to 30 days. Seedlings were replanted once they reached a comparable early vegetative stage suitable for pot establishment into individual 10.16 cm (4-inch) diameter pots containing approximately 75 g of general mix potting soil (Sun Gro Horticulture). Pots were placed on collection trays to capture drainage and minimize salt loss.
Following two–three weeks of establishment, each pot received 100 mL of quarter-strength Hoagland solution amended with either the control (tap water) or saline (50 mM NaCl) treatments. Treatments were applied weekly for four weeks, for a total of 400 mL solution and 1.17 g NaCl added per pot in the saline treatment. After the first salt addition, all plants were grown for six weeks before harvest and stored at 4 °C until analysis.
Greenhouse conditions were controlled using an automated climate control system. Plants were grown under natural sunlight supplemented with HPS lighting to maintain a 14 h photoperiod, with relative humidity maintained between 30 and 80% and daylight temperatures between 23.3 and 24.4 °C. During the 10 h dark period, relative humidity was maintained between 75 and 80% and temperatures between 21.7 and 23.3 °C.

2.2.2. Plant Tissue Analysis

Aboveground biomass was separated from roots, and roots were washed to remove soil. All plant material was oven-dried at 105 °C for 12–24 h, and dry mass was recorded. Shoots were finely ground prior to ion analysis.
Only aboveground tissues were analyzed because these tissues are removed during harvest and contribute directly to phytoremediation. Na+ and Cl− analyses followed the nitric-acid digestion method of Muchate et al. [31]. A 100 mg sample of dried tissue was digested in 30 mL of 0.5% nitric acid at 100 °C for 30 min, filtered, and refrigerated at 4 °C. Na+ and Cl− concentrations were quantified using a Dionex™ Aquion™ ion chromatography system equipped with ICS-1100 and ICS-2100 modules (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

2.2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as means ± standard deviation. Treatment effects were evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05. Two independent greenhouse experiments were conducted using identical plant species, soil, salinity treatments, and experimental protocols, each including five replicates per treatment group. Data from both experiments were combined for analysis to increase replication, incorporating variability across experimental runs.

3. Results

3.1. Decision Matrix–Based Species Screening

The plant species selected for the greenhouse experiment were those with some of the greatest matrix scores (Table 1), representing the highest potential to effectively and cost-efficiently remove salt from contaminated roadside soils in the TCMA. The information below in Table 1 provides the rationale and background supporting the matrix values for thirteen of the highest-ranked species that were subsequently evaluated in a greenhouse study. Additional information and reasoning for each score is found in Supplementary Tables S1–S4.
Species are listed in order of highest total matrix scores first. Slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus) is a native short-lived perennial cool-season grass. Due to its fast growth and quick establishment, it is commonly used as a filler in seed mixtures and for the reclamation of saline roadsides and other disturbed areas [89]. It has moderate salt tolerance (10 to 20 dS m−1) and is a palatable and nutritious forage with high crude protein content [38].
Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) is an herbaceous, long-lifespan perennial native to MN. It is an aggressive, rhizomatous species that commonly colonizes disturbed sites like roadsides [38,90]. It is used for revegetation and erosion control and has good to fair palatability for livestock [38]. Canada goldenrod has been utilized for phytoextraction of zinc (Zn)-contaminated soils and shows a mild growth decrease under saline conditions [91,92].
Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) is a native, long-lifespan perennial cool-season grass. It is an excellent erosion control plant widely used for revegetation of saline and alkaline areas [38]. It is considered to have high forage quality and equivalent salt tolerance to inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) [41,93].
Buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides) is a native, low-growing, long-lived perennial warm-season grass utilized for grazing and erosion control [38]. No studies were found testing its phytoremediation ability, although its moderate salt tolerance makes it a strong candidate [94].
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is a long-lived perennial legume crop widely used as hay. While not native, it is commonly found along roadsides in MN [38]. Alfalfa has shown potential for salt phytoremediation, with cultivation reducing soil salinity and one study showing a reduction of 1.8 dS m−1 in moderately saline soil [85,95].
Showy goldenrod (S. speciosa) is a clumping perennial wildflower native to MN that is included in MnDOT’s native seed mixes and is listed as having medium salt tolerance [38,96]. It is less aggressive than S. canadensis and is suitable for roadsides and restoration projects. No studies were found on its specific phytoremediation ability, but it was included due to its local establishment success and lower invasive potential compared to Canada goldenrod [38].
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) is a native, fast-growing, long-lived perennial warm-season grass used for soil stabilization and forage [38,97]. It is moderately salt-tolerant but tends to avoid high Na+ and Cl− accumulation in shoots [86]. However, its high biomass production makes it a practical candidate for phytoremediation [97,98].
Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is a long lifespan perennial warm-season grass native to MN. While it has relatively weak seedling vigor, it is one of the most palatable warm-season grasses and is favored for livestock and erosion control [38]. It has medium salt tolerance, and one study showed it had the highest germination rates under increasing salt levels compared to prairie cordgrass and switchgrass [99]. No studies were found investigating its phytoremediation capabilities, so its potential score was based on other grass species in the matrix.
Pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri) is an herbaceous annual plant native to MN and commonly found on disturbed soils, including roadsides [57]. While its phytoremediation capability has not been tested, it is closely related to C. album, which is capable of high salt extraction (around 40 g Na+ + Cl− m−2) [64]. Furthermore, its leaves are high in protein and can be mechanically harvested for animal feed [48].
Weeping alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans) is a non-native perennial cool-season grass selected as a substitute for the native salt accumulator Distichlis spicata when seeds were unavailable [73,93]. It is a known halophyte and is favorable for stabilizing saline rangelands [87]. Studies measured Na+ and Cl− accumulation in shoots under high-salt conditions, and it is known to show no visual damage on highway roadsides with high salt application rates [87,100].
Tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) is a non-native, long-lived perennial cool-season grass widely used for forage and erosion control [38]. It is more salt-tolerant than many other turfgrasses [101,102]. Although not widely investigated for salt remediation, it has shown promise in extracting lead due to high biomass yield [103]. A study using 50 mM NaCl irrigation reported shoot Na+ and Cl− content of approximately 5.0 and 35 mg g−1 dry mass, respectively [81].
Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) is an annual species native to Minnesota, often found in disturbed soils [38]. When grown on saline soil, it has been observed to contain an average of 2.96% Na+ in the stem and 2.49% Cl− in the leaves by dry mass, theoretically capable of removing 18 g of Na+ plus Cl− per meter squared [83,104]. It is also a major oilseed crop, and the meal byproduct has high nutritional value for animal feed, increasing its harvested biomass value [50,105].
Creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra) is a long-lived perennial cool-season grass with moderate salt tolerance [38]. While the species complex is not native and can become weedy, various varieties within the complex, such as the one tested (Strong creeping red fescue), have been used extensively on roadsides and for heavy metal remediation [106,107,108]. Based on a study of closely related fescue varieties, a balance of salt tolerance (resulting in higher biomass) and salt uptake was prioritized for selection [82].
Taken together, the decision matrix identified a subset of species that balance ecological safety, establishment potential, biomass production, and salt uptake capacity under roadside conditions. While most high-ranking species advanced successfully to experimental screening, prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) did not establish reliably under greenhouse conditions and was therefore excluded from quantitative analyses. The remaining species represent a range of functional types, life histories, and predicted phytoremediation strategies, providing a robust basis for controlled evaluation of salt uptake and growth responses under saline conditions.

3.2. Plant Growth Responses to Salinity

Aboveground shoot and belowground root dry biomass varied by species and salinity treatment (Table 2). Across species, shoot biomass under the saline treatment was generally comparable to the control, apart from big bluestem, which showed lower shoot biomass under salinity.
Root biomass showed greater sensitivity to salinity than shoot biomass. Several species exhibited lower root biomass under saline conditions, including creeping red fescue, tall fescue, weeping alkaligrass, big bluestem, switchgrass, and common sunflower.
Under control conditions, shoot biomass was broadly similar across most species, as reflected by overlapping significance groupings, although tall fescue turfgrass, creeping red fescue, and common sunflower tended to have greater shoot biomass than buffalograss, alfalfa, and Canada goldenrod. A similar pattern was observed under salinity, with tall fescue and creeping red fescue maintaining the highest shoot biomass, while Canada goldenrod exhibited the lowest.
Tall fescue turfgrass and strong creeping red fescue produced the greatest root biomass under both treatments, whereas common sunflower, buffalograss, and pitseed goosefoot consistently had the lowest root biomass. Root-to-shoot ratios (Table 3) were lower for the annual species common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot compared to perennial species, although values for many perennials remained below 1.0 under both treatments.

3.3. Sodium and Chloride Concentrations in Aboveground Tissues

Shoot Na+ and Cl− concentrations increased significantly under salinity for nearly all species compared to the control (Table 4). In the control treatment, Na+ concentrations were consistently low across species, while greater interspecies variation was observed for Cl−, with tall fescue and pitseed goosefoot exhibiting higher shoot Cl− concentrations than most other species.
Under the saline treatment, common sunflower accumulated the highest concentrations of both Na+ and Cl−. Pitseed goosefoot and Canada goldenrod exhibited the next highest Na+ concentrations, while pitseed goosefoot and showy goldenrod showed relatively high Cl− accumulation under salinity. Grasses generally accumulated lower shoot Na+ and Cl− concentrations than non-grass species, although substantial variation existed within this group. Under salinity, tall fescue and big bluestem exhibited significantly higher shoot Cl− concentrations than creeping red fescue, which accumulated the lowest concentrations among the grasses.
Across all species and treatments, Cl− accumulation exceeded Na+ accumulation on a molar basis (Table 5). Cl−/Na+ ratios were consistently greater than 1.0, with particularly high ratios observed under control conditions. Under the saline treatment, ratios declined but remained above 1.0 for all species.

3.4. Total Na+ and Cl− Uptake

Figure 1 summarizes total aboveground Na+ and Cl− uptake for each species under control and saline conditions. Under the control treatment, total Na+ uptake was uniformly low across species, consistent with the low shoot Na+ concentrations observed in the biomass. Total Na+ uptake remained comparatively low for most species under salinity, with the primary exceptions being common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot.
In the control treatment, tall fescue exhibited the greatest total salt uptake, followed by weeping alkaligrass, pitseed goosefoot, and common sunflower. Under the saline treatment, common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot showed the highest total uptake, reflecting their high shoot ion concentrations and considerable biomass production. Among perennial species, tall fescue maintained relatively high total uptake under salinity, followed by showy goldenrod and weeping alkaligrass.

4. Discussion

4.1. Growth Responses and Salt Tolerance Mechanisms

Under the saline treatment, only one species, big bluestem, exhibited a statistically significant reduction in shoot biomass relative to the control, whereas significant reductions in belowground biomass were observed in six species. The limited reduction in shoot biomass across most species suggests moderate salt tolerance and indicates that these species likely employ effective physiological strategies to mitigate salt stress, including ion exclusion, osmotic adjustment, and intracellular compartmentalization [12]. Because roots are directly exposed to elevated soil salinity, early growth inhibition may reflect osmotic stress and ion effects that constrain root elongation and biomass allocation even when shoot growth is maintained.
The annual species, common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot, exhibited lower root biomass and root/shoot ratios than perennial species, consistent with fast-growth strategies and shorter life cycles. Root/shoot ratios of annual crops are typically <0.3, whereas perennial crops often exceed 1 [109]. Although perennial species in this study showed higher root/shoot ratios than annuals, most values remained below one, likely reflecting root growth constraints imposed by pot size.

4.2. Salt Accumulation Patterns in Aboveground Biomass

Species differed substantially in shoot Na+ and Cl− concentrations. Annual species, particularly common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot, accumulated high concentrations of both ions, whereas grasses generally accumulated less, consistent with reports that many salt-tolerant grasses limit salt translocation to shoots as a primary tolerance mechanism [110]. However, notable differences were observed among grass species. Tall fescue, weeping alkaligrass, and big bluestem exhibited relatively higher shoot Cl− concentrations than other grasses, consistent with reported values for tall fescue (~35 mg Cl− g−1) and Nutall’s alkaligrass (~32 mg Cl− g−1), which rank among the highest Cl− concentrations reported for grass species included in the decision matrix (Table S4) [74,81].
This study is the first to report shoot Na+ and Cl− concentrations for goldenrod species under saline conditions. Showy goldenrod accumulated comparatively high chloride (44.9 mg g−1) and modest Na+ (8.5 mg g−1), placing it among the higher-performing perennial species evaluated. Alfalfa exhibited higher Na+ concentrations (10.6 mg g−1) and somewhat lower Cl− concentrations (24.9 mg g−1) than previously reported for moderately saline field soils (~1.5–2.3 mg Na+ g−1 and ~40–65 mg Cl− g−1) [85].
Shoot Na+ concentrations in common sunflower (27.3 mg Na+ g−1) observed in this screening were consistent with values reported in the literature, which commonly range from approximately 15–45 mg Na+ g−1 [83,104,111]. Cl− concentrations (73.7 mg Cl− g−1) were toward the upper end of reported values, which typically span ~17–50 mg Cl− g−1 [83,111,112]. Substantial variability in both Na+ and Cl− accumulation has been documented across studies, reflecting differences in salinity treatment, experimental design, plant tissue analyzed, growth duration, and cultivar. Notably, some studies report relatively low Na+ accumulation even under saline conditions, indicating that Na+ concentrations in sunflower shoots can vary widely [112,113]. Pitseed goosefoot accumulated lower shoot salt concentrations (14.5 mg Na+ g−1; 58 mg Cl− g−1) than its close relative Chenopodium album, which has been reported to accumulate up to 33.6 mg Na+ g−1 and 105 mg Cl− g−1 under field conditions with moderate to high soil salinity [64]. Compared to species previously evaluated for roadside salt phytoremediation, shoot salt concentrations observed for common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot were similar to those reported by Mann et al. [34] for Atriplex species, which accumulated 41–64 mg Cl− g−1 under highly saline conditions.
Across most species evaluated, Cl− accumulation exceeded Na+ accumulation on a molar basis, particularly under control conditions, consistent with reported patterns in many non-halophytic and moderately salt-tolerant species, which are generally more effective at excluding Na+ than Cl− [114]. Under saline treatment, Cl−/Na+ ratios declined but remained >1 for all species, suggesting increased Na+ influx relative to Cl− under higher salinity. Although several halophytic species, including Suaeda calceoliformis, Salicornia europaea, and Spergularia marina, exhibit high salt accumulation capacity, they received lower overall rankings in the decision matrix due to limitations in life cycle, establishment potential, or biomass value. This highlights the importance of integrating physiological performance with practical feasibility in roadside phytoremediation applications.

4.3. Total Salt Uptake and Implications for Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation potential depends not only on tissue salt concentrations but also on total aboveground biomass production, which together determine the overall amount of salt that can be removed from soil. In this screening, common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot exhibited the highest total Na+ and Cl− uptake among the species tested, reflecting their combination of high shoot biomass and elevated tissue ion concentrations. Despite this strong performance, removal of the total salt added in the saline treatment would require multiple harvest cycles, underscoring that phytoremediation of highly salt-contaminated soils is inherently a gradual process rather than a single-season solution.
Although annual species removed the greatest amount of salt in the greenhouse study, perennials are ultimately more practical for roadside applications because they persist year to year, remove salt early in spring when concentrations are highest, and lower reseeding and management needs [115]. Among the perennials tested, tall fescue, showy goldenrod, and weeping alkaligrass demonstrated the greatest salt uptake potential under greenhouse conditions.
Salt uptake results from the greenhouse experiment were largely consistent with predictions from the decision matrix (Table S4). Some discrepancies between predicted and observed performance are expected, as matrix values were derived from literature spanning a wide range of experimental conditions such as salinity levels, soil types, and management regimes. Nevertheless, the general consistency between matrix scores and greenhouse performance indicates that the decision matrix is an effective screening tool for narrowing a large inventory of salt-tolerant species into a manageable list of high-potential phytoremediation candidates, and that it can be further refined with experimental data.
From a practical standpoint, annual species such as common sunflower may provide high seasonal salt removal and offer opportunities for beneficial biomass use, including oilseed production or forage. However, perennial species likely remain better suited for long-term roadside management. For example, a perennial species like alfalfa, rated one of the highest in the matrix, may also be a promising species for both longer-term salt extraction and use as a nutritious animal feed once harvested.
Similarly, grass species such as western wheatgrass and slender wheatgrass may be particularly advantageous due to their reliable establishment and biomass production, even if their tissue salt concentrations are lower than those of annuals or halophytes. Although Canada goldenrod exhibited relatively low salt uptake in the greenhouse study, its high establishment and biomass yield score indicates that it may perform more effectively under field conditions. Taken together, these results suggest that multi-species plantings incorporating complementary functional traits may provide the most robust and resilient phytoremediation strategy for roadside environments.
This study integrated matrix-based rankings with controlled greenhouse measurements of sodium and chloride uptake, allowing predicted performance to be examined alongside physiological responses under standardized conditions. This combined approach demonstrates how a decision-matrix framework can be used not only to synthesize existing knowledge but also to inform experimental screening and refine candidate selection prior to field deployment. The framework provides a transparent and adaptable tool that can be adjusted for region-specific objectives and further validated through field-based studies.

4.4. Greenhouse Study Limitations and Future Research

The greenhouse study was designed as a controlled screening experiment and therefore has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Growth in small pots likely constrained root development and influenced root-to-shoot ratios and uptake dynamics, particularly for perennial species with extensive root systems. In addition, greenhouse conditions do not capture the full range of environmental stresses characteristic of roadside settings, including drought, competition, temperature extremes, and physical disturbances characteristic of roadside activities.
Despite these limitations, the results provide a strong foundation for subsequent field-scale research. Future studies should evaluate multi-year performance of perennial species, test mixed-species plantings, assess establishment success on roadside soils, determine optimal harvest timing to maximize salt removal, and further explore the economic potential of harvested biomass. Overall, this study demonstrates that both annual and perennial species can contribute meaningfully to phytoremediation of salt-impacted roadside soils and presents a systematic, quantitative framework for selecting species that balance physiological performance with practical feasibility.

5. Conclusions

This research integrated a quantitative decision matrix with greenhouse experiments to identify promising species for phytoremediation of roadside soils impacted by deicing salt. The decision matrix successfully narrowed a large inventory of salt-tolerant species to those with strong feasibility for roadside establishment and expected phytoremediation performance. Greenhouse trials confirmed that annual species such as common sunflower and pitseed goosefoot achieved the greatest total salt uptake, while perennial species including tall fescue, showy goldenrod, and weeping alkaligrass demonstrated strong uptake combined with greater long-term practicality for roadside management. Together, these findings highlight that both annual and perennial species have roles in salt remediation systems, with perennials providing persistent early-season uptake and reduced management requirements, and annuals contributing high seasonal extraction. This study provides a framework for species selection and supports the development of field-scale phytoremediation strategies, including multi-species mixes that enhance establishment, resilience, and sustained salt removal under variable roadside conditions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su18041986/s1, Table S1: Decision matrix criteria definitions, scoring ranges, and weights, Table S2: Ecological safety, biomass value, and life cycle scores, Table S3: Establishment and biomass yield scoring, Table S4: Shoot Na+ and Cl− concentrations and salt uptake scores.

Author Contributions

L.v.L.: Investigation, methodology, data curation formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. Y.Z.: Writing—review and editing. B.H.: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) (ENRTF ID: 062-B).

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in this study is publicly available in the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota (DRUM): https://hdl.handle.net/11299/277935 (accessed on 10 February 2026).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

NaSodium
ClChloride
MNMinnesota
CaCalcium
MgMagnesium
KPotassium
ROSReactive oxygen species
ANOVAanalysis of variance
ZnZinc

References

  1. Radosavljevic, J.; Slowinski, S.; Rezanezhad, F.; Shafii, M.; Gharabaghi, B.; Van Cappellen, P. Road Salt-Induced Salinization Impacts Water Geochemistry and Mixing Regime of a Canadian Urban Lake. Appl. Geochem. 2024, 162, 105928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hintz, W.D.; Fay, L.; Relyea, R.A. Road Salts, Human Safety, and the Rising Salinity of Our Fresh Waters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 20, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yan, S.; Drogui, P.; Tyagi, R.D.; Wong, J.W.C. Treatment of Runoff Water from Deicing Salt for Road Safety in Cold Climate Conditions. In Decentralized Sanitation and Water Treatment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 20–33. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kaushal, S.S.; Likens, G.E.; Mayer, P.M.; Shatkay, R.R.; Shelton, S.A.; Grant, S.B.; Utz, R.M.; Yaculak, A.M.; Maas, C.M.; Reimer, J.E.; et al. The Anthropogenic Salt Cycle. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 770–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cooper, C.A.; Mayer, P.M.; Faulkner, B.R. Effects of Road Salts on Groundwater and Surface Water Dynamics of Sodium and Chloride in an Urban Restored Stream. Biogeochemistry 2014, 121, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Novotny, E.V.; Murphy, D.; Stefan, H.G. Increase of Urban Lake Salinity by Road Deicing Salt. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 406, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Impaired Waterbodies, Minnesota, 2024. Available online: https://gisdata.mn.gov/lv/dataset/env-impaired-water-2024 (accessed on 6 February 2026).
  8. Dugan, H.A.; Bartlett, S.L.; Burke, S.M.; Doubek, J.P.; Krivak-Tetley, F.E.; Skaff, N.K.; Summers, J.C.; Farrell, K.J.; McCullough, I.M.; Morales-Williams, A.M.; et al. Salting Our Freshwater Lakes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 4453–4458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herb, W.; Janke, B.; Stefan, H. Study of De-icing Salt Accumulation and Transport Through a Watershed; Final Report 2017-50. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2017. Available online: https://mdl.mndot.gov/_flysystem/fedora/2023-01/201750.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2026).
  10. Robinson, H.; Hasenmueller, E.; Chambers, L. Soil as a Reservoir for Road Salt Retention Leading to Its Gradual Release to Groundwater. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 83, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Camelo, L.G.G.; Duval, T.P. Sodium Sorption and Desorption in Riparian Soils Impacted by Road Salt Application. Geoderma 2025, 460, 117412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Litalien, A.; Zeeb, B. Curing the Earth: A Review of Anthropogenic Soil Salinization and Plant-Based Strategies for Sustainable Mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hameed, A.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Hussain, T.; Aziz, I.; Ahmad, N.; Gul, B.; Nielsen, B.L. Effects of Salinity Stress on Chloroplast Structure and Function. Cells 2021, 10, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arif, Y.; Singh, P.; Siddiqui, H.; Bajguz, A.; Hayat, S. Salinity Induced Physiological and Biochemical Changes in Plants: An Omic Approach towards Salt Stress Tolerance. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 156, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Łuczak, K.; Czerniawska-Kusza, I.; Rosik-Dulewska, C.; Kusza, G. Effect of NaCl Road Salt on the Ionic Composition of Soils and Aesculus hippocastanum L. Foliage and Leaf Damage Intensity. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Abobatta, W.F. Plant Responses and Tolerance to Extreme Salinity: Learning from Halophyte Tolerance to Extreme Salinity. In Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants: Signaling Networks and Adaptive Mechanisms; Hasanuzzaman, M., Tanveer, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 177–210. ISBN 978-3-030-40277-8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mann, A.; Lata, C.; Kumar, N.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Sheoran, P. Halophytes as New Model Plant Species for Salt Tolerance Strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1137211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Friell, J.; Watkins, E. Review of Cool-season Turfgrasses for Salt-affected Roadsides in Cold Climates. Crop Sci. 2021, 61, 2893–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. El-Ramady, H.; Prokisch, J.; Mansour, H.; Bayoumi, Y.A.; Shalaby, T.A.; Veres, S.; Brevik, E.C. Review of Crop Response to Soil Salinity Stress: Possible Approaches from Leaching to Nano-Management. Soil Syst. 2024, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kafle, A.; Timilsina, A.; Gautam, A.; Adhikari, K.; Bhattarai, A.; Aryal, N. Phytoremediation: Mechanisms, Plant Selection and Enhancement by Natural and Synthetic Agents. Environ. Adv. 2022, 8, 100203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ammu, K.P.; Malathi, P.; Sellamuthu, K.M.; Jayashree, R.; Senthil Kumar, G. Phytoremediation of Salt-Affected Soils: Mechanistic Insights and Criteria for Plant Selection. Arid. Land. Res. Manag. 2025, 39, 455–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xiao, L.; Zhang, W.; Hu, P.; Xiao, D.; Yang, R.; Ye, Y.; Wang, K. The Formation of Large Macroaggregates Induces Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Short-Term Cropland Restoration in a Typical Karst Area. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 801, 149588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hussain Shah, S.H.; Wang, J.; Hao, X.; Thomas, B.W. Modelling Soil Salinity Effects on Salt Water Uptake and Crop Growth Using a Modified Denitrification-Decomposition Model: A Phytoremediation Approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Edgar, V.-N.; Fabián, F.-L.; Mario, P.-C.J.; Ileana, V.-R. Coupling Plant Biomass Derived from Phytoremediation of Potential Toxic-Metal-Polluted Soils to Bioenergy Production and High-Value by-Products—A Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mukherjee, S.; Leri, A.C.; Bandaranayaka, C.; Vázquez-Núñez, E.; Barros, R.; Khan, A.H.A.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, T.; Bernal, M.P.; Clemente, R.; et al. Sustainable Management of Post-Phytoremediation Biomass. Energ. Ecol. Environ. 2025, 10, 675–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aryal, M. Phytoremediation Strategies for Mitigating Environmental Toxicants. Heliyon 2024, 10, e38683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rodriguez-Campos, J.; Perales-Garcia, A.; Hernandez-Carballo, J.; Martinez-Rabelo, F.; Hernández-Castellanos, B.; Barois, I.; Contreras-Ramos, S.M. Bioremediation of Soil Contaminated by Hydrocarbons with the Combination of Three Technologies: Bioaugmentation, Phytoremediation, and Vermiremediation. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 1981–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Waseem, M.; Khilji, S.A.; Tariq, S.; Jamal, A.; Alomrani, S.O.; Javed, T. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals from Industrially Contaminated Soil Using Sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) by Inoculation of Two Indigenous Bacteria. Plant Stress. 2024, 11, 100297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nawroth, L.; Cartwright, L.A.; Rutter, A.; Zeeb, B. Phytoremediation of Road Salt Affected Soils in the Toronto Region Using Native Halophytes. Plant Soil 2025, 517, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Muchate, N.S.; Nikalje, G.C.; Rajurkar, N.S.; Suprasanna, P.; Nikam, T.D. Physiological Responses of the Halophyte Sesuvium portulacastrum to Salt Stress and Their Relevance for Saline Soil Bio-Reclamation. Flora 2016, 224, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Morteau, B.; Triffault-Bouchet, G.; Galvez, R.; Martel, L. Nutrient and Removal Kinetics Impacts on Salt Phytoremediation by Atriplex Patula and Typha Angustifolia. J. Environ. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Suaire, R.; Durickovic, I.; Framont-Terrasse, L.; Leblain, J.-Y.; De Rouck, A.-C.; Simonnot, M.-O. Phytoextraction of Na+ and Cl− by Atriplex halimus L. and Atriplex hortensis L.: A Promising Solution for Remediation of Road Runoff Contaminated with Deicing Salts. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mann, E.; Rutter, A.; Zeeb, B. Evaluating the Efficacy of Atriplex Spp. in the Phytoextraction of Road Salt (NaCl) from Contaminated Soil. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Glenn, E.P.; Riley, J.J.; Swingle, R.S.; Mota, C.U.; Watson, M.C.; Squires, V.R. North American Halophytes: Potential Use in Animal Husbandry. In Halophytes as a Resource for Livestock and for Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands; Squires, V.R., Ayoub, A.T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 165–174. ISBN 978-94-011-0818-8. [Google Scholar]
  36. Amabogha, O.N.; Garelick, H.; Jones, H.; Purchase, D. Combining Phytoremediation with Bioenergy Production: Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Matrix for Plant Species Selection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 40698–40711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Santos, J.; Al-Azzawi, M.; Aronson, J.; Flowers, T.J. eHALOPH a Database of Salt-Tolerant Plants: Helping Put Halophytes to Work. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016, 57, e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. USDA Plants Database. Available online: https://plants.usda.gov/ (accessed on 19 December 2023).
  39. Jursík, M.; Holec, J.; Soukup, J.; Venclová, V. Competitive Relationships between Sugar Beet and Weeds in Dependence on Time of Weed Control. Plant Soil Environ. 2008, 54, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Matney, C. Foxtail Barley, Colorado State University Extension. Available online: https://extension.colostate.edu/resource/foxtail-barley/ (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  41. Harmoney, K.; Jaeger, J. Tall Wheatgrass and Western Wheatgrass Used for Complementary Cool-Season Forage Systems. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2019, 5, 180065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, Y.; Xiao, L.; Yan, H.; Wu, M.; Hao, X.; Liu, H. Nutritional Values, Bioactive Compounds and Health Benefits of Purslane (Portulaca Oleracea L.): A Comprehensive Review. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2024, 13, 2480–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cao, L.; Sturtevant, R. Puccinellia distans (Jacq.) Parl. U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. 2024. Available online: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?Species_ID=2689 (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  44. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Species Profile—Cattail. Available online: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/minnaqua/speciesprofile/cattail.html (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  45. Fern, K. Atriplex Prostrata. Available online: https://temperate.theferns.info/plant/Atriplex+prostrata (accessed on 8 August 2024).
  46. Zicari, S.; Zhang, R.; Kaffka, S. Sugar Beet. In Integrated Processing Technologies for Food and Agricultural By-Products; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 331–351. ISBN 978-0-12-814138-0. [Google Scholar]
  47. Poonia, A.; Upadhayay, A. Chenopodium album Linn: Review of Nutritive Value and Biological Properties. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 3977–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kindscher, K.; Martin, L.; Corbett, S.; Lafond, D. Nutritional Properties of Native Plants and Traditional Foods from the Central United States. Ethnobiol. Lett. 2018, 9, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Aasen, A.; Bjorge, M. Grasses. In Alberta Forage Manual; Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2009; pp. 76–79. [Google Scholar]
  50. Adeleke, B.S.; Babalola, O.O. Oilseed Crop Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) as a Source of Food: Nutritional and Health Benefits. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 4666–4684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Köbbing, J.F.; Thevs, N.; Zerbe, S. The Utilisation of Reed (Phragmites australis): A Review. Mires Peat 2013, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Y.; Coulman, B.E. Morphological and Agronomic Variation of Puccinellia Nuttalliana Populations from the Canadian Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 95, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abideen, Z.; Qasim, M.; Rizvi, R.F.; Gul, B.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M.A. Oilseed Halophytes: A Potential Source of Biodiesel Using Saline Degraded Lands. Biofuels 2015, 6, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gunning, D. Cultivating Salicornia europaea (Marsh Samphire). Dublin Irel. Ir. Sea Fish. Board. 2016, 4, 1–95. [Google Scholar]
  55. Weeds of the West, 5th ed.; Whitson, T.D., Burrill, L.C., Eds.; Western Society of Weed Science: Newark, CA, USA, 1996; ISBN 978-0-941570-13-8. [Google Scholar]
  56. Dunn, C.D.; Stephenson, M.B.; Stubbendieck, J. Common Grasses of Nebraska—University of Nebraska Extension. Available online: https://extensionpubs.unl.edu/publication/ec170/2016/pdf/view/ec170-2016.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2024).
  57. Clemants, S.; Mosyakin, S. Flora of North America Editorial Committee Chenopodium. Flora N. Am. North. Mex. 2003, 4, 275–299. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mahr, S. Weed Identification: Common Purslane, Portulaca oleracea. Available online: https://hort.extension.wisc.edu/articles/common-purslane-portulaca-oleracea/ (accessed on 16 January 2024).
  59. Smith, W.R. Salicornia rubra: Red Saltwort | Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Rare Species Guide. Available online: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PDCHE0J020 (accessed on 19 December 2025).
  60. Lee, D.; Owens, V.N.; Boe, A.; Koo, B. Biomass and Seed Yields of Big Bluestem, Switchgrass, and Intermediate Wheatgrass in Response to Manure and Harvest Timing at Two Topographic Positions. GCB Bioenergy 2009, 1, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Keiffer, C.H.; Ungar, I.A. The Effects of Density and Salinity on Shoot Biomass and Ion Accumulation in Five Inland Halophytic Species. Can. J. Bot. 1997, 75, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tober, D.; Jensen, N.; Duckwitz, W.; Knudson, M. Sideoats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) Performance Trials—North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. Available online: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov (accessed on 6 February 2026).
  63. Sawanon, S.; Leungprasert, S.; Sillapacharoenkul, B.; Khunanake, R.; Soiklom, S.; Sinbuathong, N. Grass as a High Potential By-Product: Buffalo Grass to Biogas and the Increase of System Performance and Stability. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2022, 47, 31941–31948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hamidov, A. Apocynum lancifolium and Chenopodium album—Potential Species to Remediate Saline Soils. Environ. Dev. 2007, 3, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  65. Díaz, F.J.; Benes, S.E.; Grattan, S.R. Field Performance of Halophytic Species under Irrigation with Saline Drainage Water in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 118, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Harmoney, K.R. Cool-Season Grass Biomass in the Southern Mixed-Grass Prairie Region of the USA. Bioenerg. Res. 2015, 8, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Larsen, S.U.; Jørgensen, U.; Lærke, P.E. Biomass Yield and N Uptake in Tall Fescue and Reed Canary Grass Depending on N and PK Fertilization on Two Marginal Sites in Denmark. In Perennial Biomass Crops for a Resource-Constrained World; Barth, S., Murphy-Bokern, D., Kalinina, O., Taylor, G., Jones, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 233–242. ISBN 978-3-319-44529-8. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kacorzyk, P.; Kasperczyk, M.; Szkutnik, J. The Share of Roots, Sward and Stubble Biomass in Biological Yield of Selected Grass Species. Mod. Phytomorphology 2013, 4, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  69. Villalobos, F.J.; Anthony, J.H.; Ritchie, J.T.; Orgaz, F. OILCROP-SUN: A Development, Growth, and Yield Model of the Sunftower Crop. Agron. J. 1996, 88, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cossani, C.M.; Slafer, G.A.; Savin, R. Yield and Biomass in Wheat and Barley under a Range of Conditions in a Mediterranean Site. Field Crops Res. 2009, 112, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gaytán Valencia, J.A.; Castro Rivera, R.; Villegas Aparicio, Y.; Aguilar Benítez, G.; Solís Oba, M.M.; Carrillo Rodríguez, J.C.; Negrete Sánchez, L.O. Alfalfa (Medicago Sativa L.) Biomass Yield at Different Pasture Ages and Cutting Frequencies. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2019, 10, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hamidov, A. Environmentally Useful Technique—Portulaca oleracea. Environ. Dev. 2007, 3, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tarasoff, C.S.; Mallory-Smith, C.A.; Ball, D.A. Comparative Plant Responses of Puccinellia distans and Puccinellia nuttalliana to Sodic versus Normal Soil Types. J. Arid. Environ. 2007, 70, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. McSorley, K.A.; Rutter, A.; Cumming, R.; Zeeb, B.A. Chloride Accumulation vs Chloride Excretion: Phytoextraction Potential of Three Halophytic Grass Species Growing in a Salinized Landfill. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 572, 1132–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Acharya, M.; Ashworth, A.J.; Burner, D.M.; Burke, J.M.; Pote, D.H.; Muir, J.P. Browse Potential of Bristly Locust, Smooth Sumac, and Sericea Lespedeza for Small Ruminants. Agroforest Syst. 2020, 94, 1087–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rozema, E.R.; Gordon, R.J.; Zheng, Y. Plant Species for the Removal of Na+ and Cl– from Greenhouse Nutrient Solution. HortScience 2014, 49, 1071–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ciesielczuk, T.; Poluszyńska, J.; Rosik-Dulewska, C.; Sporek, M.; Lenkiewicz, M. Uses of Weeds as an Economical Alternative to Processed Wood Biomass and Fossil Fuels. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, S.; Albrecht, K.; Sheaffer, C.; Lee, D.; Subramanian, S.; Owens, V. Biomass Production of Prairie Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata Link.) Using Urea and Kura Clover (Trifolium ambiguum Bieb.) as a Source of Nitrogen. Bioenerg. Res. 2020, 13, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dickerman, J.A.; Stewart, A.J. Estimates of Net Annual Aboveground Production: Sensitivity to Sampling Frequency. Ecology 1986, 67, 650–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hajiboland, R.; Joudmand, A.; Fotouhi, K. Mild Salinity Improves Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.) Quality. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant Sci. 2009, 59, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xu, R.; Fujiyama, H. Comparison of Ionic Concentration, Organic Solute Accumulation and Osmotic Adaptation in Kentucky Bluegrass and Tall Fescue under NaCl Stress. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 59, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Khan, A.H.; Marshall, C. Salt Tolerance within Populations of Chewing Fescue (Festuca Rubra, L.). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1981, 12, 1271–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bhatt, J.G.; Indirakutty, K.N. Salt Uptake and Salt Tolerance by Sunflower. Plant Soil 1973, 39, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chang, P.; Gerhardt, K.E.; Huang, X.-D.; Yu, X.-M.; Glick, B.R.; Gerwing, P.D.; Greenberg, B.M. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Facilitate the Growth of Barley and Oats in Salt-Impacted Soil: Implications for Phytoremediation of Saline Soils. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2014, 16, 1133–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cao, J.; Li, X.; Kong, X.; Zed, R.; Dong, L. Using Alfalfa (Medicago Sativa) to Ameliorate Salt-Affected Soils in Yingda Irrigation District in Northwest China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 32, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sun, Y.; Niu, G.; Ganjegunte, G.; Wu, Y. Salt Tolerance of Six Switchgrass Cultivars. Agriculture 2018, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hosseini, S.; Shabani, L.; Sabzalian, M.R.; Gharibi, S. Foliar Spray of Commercial Seaweed and Amino Acid-Derived Biostimulants Promoted Phytoremediation Potential and Salinity Stress Tolerance in Halophytic Grass, Puccinellia Distans. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2023, 25, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Yang, X.; Wei, H. Effects of Soil Salinity on Growth, Ion Relations, and Compatible Solute Accumulation of Two Sumac Species: Rhus Glabra and Rhus Trilobata. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2013, 44, 3187–3204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ogle, D.; St. John, L.; Stannard, M. Grass, Grass-Like, Forb, Legume, and Woody Species for the Intermountain West; Idaho Plant Materials Technical Note No. 24 (Revision); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WA/PM_TN02_revised._0311.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2026).
  90. Werner, P.A.; Platt, W.J. Ecological Relationships of Co-Occurring Goldenrods (Solidago: Compositae). Am. Nat. 1976, 110, 959–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bielecka, A.; Królak, E. Solidago canadensis as a Bioaccumulator and Phytoremediator of Pb and Zn. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 36942–36951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Abbas, A.; Huang, P.; Hussain, S.; Shen, F.; Wang, H.; Du, D. Mild Evidence for Local Adaptation of Solidago canadensis under Different Salinity, Drought, and Abscisic Acid Conditions. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2022, 31, 2987–2995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Aschenbach, T.A. Variation in Growth Rates under Saline Conditions of Pascopyrum smithii (Western Wheatgrass) and Distichlis spicata (Inland Saltgrass) from Different Source Populations in Kansas and Nebraska: Implications for the Restoration of Salt-Affected Plant Communities. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhang, Q.; Rue, K.; Wang, S. Salinity Effect on Seed Germination and Growth of Two Warm-Season Native Grass Species. HortScience 2012, 47, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gelaye, K.K.; Zehetner, F.; Loiskandl, W.; Klik, A. Comparison of Growth of Annual Crops Used for Salinity Bioremediation in the Semi-Arid Irrigation Area. Plant Soil Environ. 2019, 65, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. MacDonagh, P.; Hallyn, N. Native Seed Mix Design for Roadsides: Final Report; Minnesota Department of Transportation, Research Services Section: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2010; Available online: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/erosion/pdf/native-seed-mix-dm.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2026).
  97. Balsamo, R.A.; Kelly, W.J.; Satrio, J.A.; Ruiz-Felix, M.N.; Fetterman, M.; Wynn, R.; Hagel, K. Utilization of Grasses for Potential Biofuel Production and Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2015, 17, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chen, B.-C.; Lai, H.-Y.; Juang, K.-W. Model Evaluation of Plant Metal Content and Biomass Yield for the Phytoextraction of Heavy Metals by Switchgrass. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 80, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Schmer, M.R.; Xue, Q.; Hendrickson, J.R. Salinity Effects on Perennial, Warm-Season (C 4) Grass Germination Adapted to the Northern Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 92, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Friell, J.; Watkins, E.; Horgan, B. Salt Tolerance of 75 Cool-Season Turfgrasses for Roadsides. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2012, 62, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kobayashi, H.; Sato, S.; Masaoka, Y. Tolerance of Grasses to Calcium Chloride, Magnesium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Plant Prod. Sci. 2004, 7, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Watkins, E.; Sessoms, F.; Hollman, A.; Laskowski, M.; Moncada, K. Regional Optimization of Roadside Turfgrass Seed Mixtures; University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2018; 66p. [Google Scholar]
  103. Begonia, M.; Begonia, G.; Ighoavodha, M.; Gilliard, D. Lead Accumulation by Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) Grown on a Lead-Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2005, 2, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Temme, A.A.; Burns, V.A.; Donovan, L.A. Element Content and Distribution Has Limited, Tolerance Metric Dependent, Impact on Salinity Tolerance in Cultivated Sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Plant Direct 2020, 4, e00238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. de Morais Oliveira, V.R.; de Arruda, A.M.V.; Silva, L.N.S.; de Souza, J.B.F.; de Queiroz, J.P.A.F.; da Silva Melo, A.; Holanda, J.S. Sunflower Meal as a Nutritional and Economically Viable Substitute for Soybean Meal in Diets for Free-Range Laying Hens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 220, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pavlick, L. A New Taxonomic Survey of the Festuca Rubra Complex in Northwestern North America, with Emphasis on British Columbia. Phytologia 1985, 57, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  107. Padmavathiamma, P.K.; Li, L.Y. Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soil in Temperate Humid Regions of British Columbia, Canada. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2009, 11, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wong, Y.S.; Lam, E.K.H.; Tam, N.F.Y. Physiological Effects of Copper Treatment and Its Uptake Pattern in Festuca rubra Cv. Merlin. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1994, 11, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mosier, S.; Córdova, S.C.; Robertson, G.P. Restoring Soil Fertility on Degraded Lands to Meet Food, Fuel, and Climate Security Needs via Perennialization. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 706142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Roy, S.; Chakraborty, U. Salt Tolerance Mechanisms in Salt Tolerant Grasses (STGs) and Their Prospects in Cereal Crop Improvement. Bot. Stud. 2014, 55, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Shahbaz, M.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.A.; Hanif, A.; Hameed, S.; Joham, S.; Rehman, R. Salt-Induced Modulation in Growth, Photosynthetic Capacity, Proline Content and Ion Accumulation in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Acta Physiol. Plant 2011, 33, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ebrahimi, R.; Bhatla, S.C. Effect of Sodium Chloride Levels on Growth, Water Status, Uptake, Transport, and Accumulation Pattern of Sodium and Chloride Ions in Young Sunflower Plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 815–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Akram, N.A.; Ashraf, M. Pattern of Accumulation of Inorganic Elements in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Plants Subjected to Salt Stress and Exogenous Application of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 521–530. [Google Scholar]
  114. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Jandová, V.; Bucková, M.; Hegrová, J.; Dostál, I.; Huzlík, J.; Effenberger, K.; Ličbinský, R. The Relationship among Precipitation, Application of Salt in Winter Road Maintenance and the Quality of Waterways and Soil around Motorway. Water 2020, 12, 2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 01986 g001
Figure 1. Total Na+ and Cl− uptake in aboveground biomass of plant species grown under control (a) and saline (b) conditions. Within each salt treatment, total salt uptake (Na+ plus Cl−) of species sharing the same letter is not significantly different. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation.
Figure 1. Total Na+ and Cl− uptake in aboveground biomass of plant species grown under control (a) and saline (b) conditions. Within each salt treatment, total salt uptake (Na+ plus Cl−) of species sharing the same letter is not significantly different. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation.
Sustainability 18 01986 g001
Table 1. Multi-criteria decision matrix results for species selection.
Table 1. Multi-criteria decision matrix results for species selection.
Scientific NameCommon NameEcological
Safety
(×2)		Establishment + Yield (×3)Salt
Uptake
(×2.5)		Biomass
Value
(×1)		Life
Cycle
(×1.5)		Total
Matrix
Score
Elymus trachycaulusSlender wheatgrass108.61.787.569.3
Solidago canadensisCanada goldenrod98.82.241068.9
Pascopyrum smithiiWestern wheatgrass107.41.771068.5
Bouteloua dactyloidesBuffalo grass107.71.761068.4
Medicago sativaAlfalfa87.72.191068.3
Solidago speciosaShowy goldenrod107.42.241066.7
Panicum virgatumSwitchgrass97.70.771064.8
Spartina pectinataPrairie cordgrass107.41.441064.7
Andropogon gerardiiBig bluestem1061.771064.3
Chenopodium berlandieriPitseed goosefoot106.66.95163.6
Helianthus annuusCommon sunflower108.62.29161.8
Distichlis spicataSaltgrass96.51.45.51061.6
Lolium arundinaceumTall fescue turfgrass88.12.057.561.6
Festuca rubraCreeping red fescue96.61.741061.1
Suaeda calceoliformisHorned seablite104.19.312.560.3
Rhus glabraSmooth sumac8.58.20.621060.2
Bouteloua curtipendulaSide oats grama105.51.787.560.0
Phragmites australisCommon reed58.30.971059.2
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontaniSoftstem bulrush1051.741058.1
Atriplex prostrataTriangle orache106.25.04156.6
Hordeum vulgareBarley87.72.59155.8
Salicornia europaeaCommon glasswort1037.55.5154.8
Hordeum jubatumFoxtail barley76.93.63554.2
Beta vulgarisSugar beet101.46.792.553.7
Spergularia marinaSalt sandsburry103.37.312.552.8
Puccinellia nuttallianaNutall’s alkaligrass103.91.747.551.3
Chenopodium albumLambsquarters36.66.94148.6
Typha latifoliaBroadleaf cattail17.91.867.547.5
Puccinellia distansWeeping alkaligrass73.11.757.543.9
Portulaca oleraceaCommon purslane07.24.14137.3
Table 2. Aboveground (shoot) and belowground (root) oven-dry biomass of plant species grown under control and saline conditions.
Table 2. Aboveground (shoot) and belowground (root) oven-dry biomass of plant species grown under control and saline conditions.
SpeciesShoots (Control) (g)Shoots (Saline) (g)Roots (Control) (g)Roots (Saline) (g)
Common sunflower1.53 ± 0.49 ab1.28 ± 0.43 bcde0.38 ± 0.14 f0.23 ± 0.16 f
Pitseed goosefoot1.39 ± 0.26 abcd1.33 ± 0.28 bcde0.51 ± 0.07 ef0.49 ± 0.07 ef
Big bluestem1.45 ± 0.56 abcd1.03 ± 0.23 cde1.05 ± 0.45 bc0.53 ± 0.09 e
Buffalograss0.97 ± 0.55 cde0.89 ± 0.24 ef0.55 ± 0.15 ef0.46 ± 0.09 ef
Creeping red fescue1.55 ± 0.37 ab1.54 ± 0.51 ab1.58 ± 0.27 a1.05 ± 0.20 bc
Slender wheatgrass1.25 ± 0.18 abcd1.40 ± 0.42 abcd1.11 ± 0.13 b1.14 ± 0.21 ab
Switchgrass1.06 ± 0.38 bcde0.94 ± 0.23 def0.67 ± 0.13 def0.52 ± 0.15 e
Weeping alkaligrass1.49 ± 0.35 abc1.45 ± 0.44 abc0.85 ± 0.06 bcde0.65 ± 0.14 de
Western wheatgrass1.01 ± 0.26 bcde1.13 ± 0.24 bcde0.93 ± 0.16 bcd1.02 ± 0.34 bc
Tall fescue1.72 ± 0.154 a1.86 ± 0.25 a1.54 ± 0.20 a1.34 ± 0.16 a
Alfalfa0.86 ± 0.16 de1.01 ± 0.18 cdef1.00 ± 0.24 bcd1.11 ± 0.26 abc
Canada goldenrod0.64 ± 0.41 e0.53 ± 0.21 f0.71 ± 0.32 cdef0.59 ± 0.23 de
Showy goldenrod1.00 ± 0.30 bcde1.03 ± 0.31 cde1.07 ± 0.33 b0.83 ± 0.19 cd
Notes: Species are grouped by plant category (annuals, perennial grasses, and perennial forbs) and listed in alphabetical order by common name within each group. Values are means ± standard deviations. Within each salt treatment and plant part, species sharing the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Table 3. Root-to-shoot biomass ratios of plant species under control and saline conditions.
Table 3. Root-to-shoot biomass ratios of plant species under control and saline conditions.
SpeciesRoot/Shoot (Control)Root/Shoot (Saline)
Common sunflower0.250.19
Pitseed goosefoot0.380.38
Big bluestem0.720.54
Buffalograss0.690.56
Creeping red fescue1.070.73
Slender wheatgrass0.900.84
Switchgrass0.720.60
Tall fescue0.910.73
Weeping alkaligrass0.610.50
Western wheatgrass0.880.89
Alfalfa1.181.11
Canada goldenrod1.281.18
Showy goldenrod1.090.90
Table 4. Na+ and Cl− concentrations (mg g−1 dry mass) in aboveground biomass of plant species grown under control and saline conditions.
Table 4. Na+ and Cl− concentrations (mg g−1 dry mass) in aboveground biomass of plant species grown under control and saline conditions.
SpeciesNa+ (Control)
(mg g−1 DM)		Na+ (Saline)
(mg g−1 DM)		Cl− (Control)
(mg g−1 DM)		Cl− (Saline)
(mg g−1 DM)
Common sunflower2.49 ± 1.37 a27.28 ± 4.23 a13.14 ± 4.10 bcde73.66 ± 21.57 a
Pitseed goosefoot1.32 ± 1.07 ab14.48 ± 3.66 bc18.39 ± 6.23 ab58.02 ± 5.64 ab
Big bluestem0.93 ± 0.65 ab4.43 ± 1.11 de13.46 ± 2.15 bcde31.92 ± 5.49 cde
Buffalograss1.38 ± 1.03 ab7.05 ± 4.87 cde7.58 ± 2.58 e20.74 ± 13.66 def
Creeping red fescue1.32 ± 2.35 ab2.38 ± 1.26 e10.97 ± 4.14 cde14.95 ± 6.23 f
Slender wheatgrass0.60 ± 0.24 b3.40 ± 2.16 de12.30 ± 7.23 bcde18.53 ± 8.36 ef
Switchgrass0.77 ± 0.27 b5.80 ± 5.16 de9.52 ± 3.26 de22.68 ± 11.14 def
Tall fescue2.14 ± 1.28 ab6.45 ± 1.26 de23.34 ± 1.94 a33.28 ± 3.74 cde
Weeping alkaligrass1.32 ± 0.68 ab6.31 ± 3.19 de16.62 ± 6.87 bc26.66 ± 10.41 def
Western wheatgrass0.57 ± 0.23 b3.21 ± 0.72 de15.23 ± 5.86 bcd23.24 ± 8.49 def
Alfalfa1.77 ± 0.59 ab10.60 ± 3.77 bcd11.11 ± 1.49 cde24.90 ± 6.93 def
Canada goldenrod1.78 ± 1.55 ab14.88 ± 13.93 b8.99 ± 1.75 de35.25 ± 16.41 cd
Showy goldenrod0.63 ± 0.31 b8.47 ± 2.20 bcde14.21 ± 3.22 bcd44.85 ± 9.25 bc
Notes: Values are means ± standard deviations. Within each salt treatment and ion (Na+ or Cl−), species sharing the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Table 5. Molar Cl−/Na+ ratios of aboveground biomass under control and saline conditions.
Table 5. Molar Cl−/Na+ ratios of aboveground biomass under control and saline conditions.
SpeciesCl−/Na+ (Control)Cl−/Na+ (Saline)
Common sunflower3.791.73
Pitseed goosefoot10.732.72
Big bluestem14.764.85
Buffalograss4.232.07
Creeping red fescue11.214.49
Slender wheatgrass12.783.98
Switchgrass8.824.40
Tall fescue8.983.41
Weeping alkaligrass10.043.02
Western wheatgrass18.844.81
Alfalfa4.691.58
Canada goldenrod7.332.82
Showy goldenrod17.123.51
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

van Lierop, L.; Zhan, Y.; Hu, B. A Decision Matrix–Guided Framework for Screening Plant Species for Sustainable Phytoremediation of Road Salt–Contaminated Roadside Soils. Sustainability 2026, 18, 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041986

AMA Style

van Lierop L, Zhan Y, Hu B. A Decision Matrix–Guided Framework for Screening Plant Species for Sustainable Phytoremediation of Road Salt–Contaminated Roadside Soils. Sustainability. 2026; 18(4):1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041986

Chicago/Turabian Style

van Lierop, Leif, Yuanhang Zhan, and Bo Hu. 2026. "A Decision Matrix–Guided Framework for Screening Plant Species for Sustainable Phytoremediation of Road Salt–Contaminated Roadside Soils" Sustainability 18, no. 4: 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041986

APA Style

van Lierop, L., Zhan, Y., & Hu, B. (2026). A Decision Matrix–Guided Framework for Screening Plant Species for Sustainable Phytoremediation of Road Salt–Contaminated Roadside Soils. Sustainability, 18(4), 1986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041986

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop