Next Article in Journal
Approaches to Extracting Bioactive Compounds from Bark of Various Plants: A Brief Review
Previous Article in Journal
High Dose of Nickel Unbalances Carbon Metabolism and Nitrogen Assimilation in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Application of Selenium in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Under Water Stress Improves Grain Quality and Reduces Production Losses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Research on the Physiological Mechanisms of Nitrogen in Alleviating Plant Drought Tolerance

1
Agro-Environmental Protection Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tianjin 300191, China
2
Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Nutrient Cycling and Arable Land Conservation, Soil and Fertilizer Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
3
Key Laboratory of Tobacco Biology and Processing, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tobacco Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Qingdao 266101, China
4
College of Resources, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2025, 14(18), 2928; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14182928
Submission received: 20 August 2025 / Revised: 14 September 2025 / Accepted: 18 September 2025 / Published: 20 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Nutrition in Alleviating Abiotic Stress)

Abstract

Drought represents a paramount constraint on global agricultural productivity, imposing severe limitations on crop yield and quality across diverse agroecosystems. Nitrogen (N), functioning as an indispensable macronutrient fundamental to plant architecture, metabolism, and stress acclimatization, exerts a pivotal influence in modulating plant resilience to water deficit. Substantial evidence accumulated in recent years underscores that optimal N nutrition significantly enhances plant adaptive capacity under drought by improving intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi), optimizing photosynthetic performance, augmenting antioxidant defense systems, promoting advantageous root architectural modifications, and stabilizing biological N fixation (BNF) symbioses. This comprehensive review synthesizes current knowledge on the intricate physiological and molecular mechanisms underpinning N-mediated drought mitigation. We meticulously examine regulatory roles of N in water relations and hydraulic conductivity, photosynthetic apparatus protection and carbon assimilation efficiency, N metabolic flux and assimilation homeostasis, reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging and osmotic adjustment, root system development and resource foraging strategies, BNF system robustness under water stress, and the complex signaling networks integrating N and drought responses. Furthermore, we critically evaluate existing research consensus, identify persisting controversies and knowledge gaps, and delineate future research trajectories and translational challenges. The overarching objective is to furnish a robust theoretical foundation for devising precision N management strategies and advancing the breeding of drought-resilient, nutrient-efficient crop cultivars suited to arid and semi-arid regions facing escalating climate variability.

1. Introduction

Drought stress is a major abiotic constraint limiting global agricultural productivity, posing severe threats to crop yield and food security amid escalating climate variability [1,2,3]. Water deficit rapidly impairs key physiological processes, including photosynthesis, hydraulic conductance, and nutrient assimilation, disrupting the carbon–water–nitrogen (N) metabolic nexus and ultimately reducing crop performance [4,5,6,7].
N, beyond its fundamental role as a constituent of amino acids, nucleic acids, and chlorophyll, serves as a central signaling molecule that orchestrates plant responses to drought [8,9]. Evidence indicates that optimal N nutrition enhances drought tolerance through improved water use efficiency (WUE, biomass produced per unit water consumed), photosynthetic protection, antioxidant defense, root architectural modifications, and stabilization of biological N fixation (BNF) in legumes [10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, the effects of N are both dose- and form-dependent. For example, nitrate often enhances hydraulic conductivity through aquaporin (AQP) regulation, while excessive or ammonium-based fertilization may intensify stress responses [16,17]. Moreover, species-specific adaptations and interactions with concurrent stresses (e.g., heat, elevated CO2) further complicate N management strategies [18,19,20].
Despite advances, significant gaps remain in understanding the spatiotemporal dynamics, species-specific responses, and molecular mechanisms underlying N-mediated drought resilience. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the physiological and molecular mechanisms by which N alleviates drought stress, spanning water relations, photosynthesis, antioxidant systems, root architecture, BNF, and cross-stress interactions. We critically evaluate existing consensus, identify controversies, and propose future research directions to inform precision N management and breeding for drought-resilient, nutrient-efficient crops.

2. Physiological Mechanisms of N in Alleviating Plant Drought Stress

2.1. Regulation of Water Use and Photosynthesis by N Under Drought Stress

N exerts a tripartite influence-acting simultaneously as a signal, a structural component, and a nutrient-within the drought-stressed plant system. It serves as a primary substrate for the biosynthesis of photosynthetic machinery while crucially modulating the integrated “water uptake–translocation–consumption–carbon assimilation” continuum through its regulation of AQP and key photosynthetic enzyme complexes [21,22]. Under conditions of moderate water deficit, a predominance of nitrate in the root zone generally promotes the maintenance of root hydraulic conductivity (Lpr) and leaf hydraulic conductance (Kleaf), facilitating sustained root pressure and xylem sap flow to the canopy [23]. This hydraulic stability underpins the preservation of partial stomatal aperture, ensuring continued CO2 diffusion into the leaf mesophyll for carboxylation by Rubisco, thereby stabilizing photochemical efficiency (particularly PSII function, measured as variable fluorescence over maximum fluorescence (Fv/Fm)) and net photosynthetic rate (Pn) [24,25]. Consequently, intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi, the ratio of photosynthetic carbon assimilation to stomatal conductance) and WUE often exhibit significant improvement under moderate NO3 nutrition during drought [26].
This hydraulic–photosynthetic coupling effect facilitated by optimal N is demonstrable across phylogenetically diverse species. In the perennial grass Leymus chinensis subjected to moderate-severe drought, supplementation with NO3 (5 mM) resulted in a 12% increase in Fv/Fm compared to N-deficient controls [27]. Similarly, Catalpa bungei seedlings exposed to vertical partial root-zone drying (V-PRD) stress achieved maximal WUEi when supplied with 1 mM N, concomitant with observable xylem vessel thickening, enhancing hydraulic efficiency [28]. Maize seedlings experiencing polyethylene glycol (PEG)-induced osmotic stress recovered key photosynthetic parameters (Pn, Fv/Fm) to 80–95% of well-watered control levels when nourished with 7.5 mM N, whereas both N deficiency and supra-optimal N exacerbated the stress damage, significantly impairing photosynthesis and growth [29]. Winter wheat under extreme soil water deficit (16% volumetric water content) coupled with high N fertilization exhibited a precipitous decline of approximately 50% in both N use efficiency (NUE) and WUE, performing markedly worse than plants receiving moderate N inputs [30]. The phenomenon of high N-induced hydraulic vulnerability underscores the counterproductive nature of excessive fertilization in water-limited environments (Table 1).
Furthermore, the chemical form of N significantly modulates plant drought tolerance trajectories. The apple rootstock Malus prunifolia exhibits a distinct physiological preference, markedly increasing NH4+ influx rates under PEG-simulated drought stress [31]. This shift, which aligns with its N-conserving strategy under drought, is consistent with the energy-efficient nature of NH4+ uptake. Unlike NO3, which requires active transport via nitrate transporters (NRTs) and consumes ATP, ammonium enters passively through ammonium transporters (AMTs) without energy cost [32,33]. Transcriptionally, Malus prunifolia upregulates high-affinity AMTs (AMT1;2, AMT4;2) and downregulates NRTs, reducing energy expenditure under stress while maintaining cellular K+/Na+ balance [31,32]. This contrasts sharply with graminaceous species like maize and wheat, which rely on NO3-induced AQP activity for hydraulic stability [23,29], highlighting species-specific N acquisition strategies.
Table 1. Physiological responses of different crops to N levels under drought conditions.
Table 1. Physiological responses of different crops to N levels under drought conditions.
Crop SpeciesN TreatmentKey Physiological ChangesReference
Maize (Zea mays)7.5 mM N supplyPhotosynthetic parameters (Pn, Fv/Fm) recovered to 80–95% of controls; H2O2 and O2 levels reduced by over 40%[29]
Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum)Moderate N supply (≈7 mM total N)Activities of glutamine synthetase (GS1) and glutamate synthase (Fd-GOGAT) maintained at 80–90% of controls[34]
Catalpa bungei1 mM N + V-PRDWUEi maximized; xylem vessel radial expansion enhanced hydraulic conductivity[28]
Leymus chinensis5 mM NO3 supplementationFv/Fm increased by 12% compared to N-deficient groups[27]
Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)High N treatment (≈30 g N m−2)Stomatal conductance decreased; transpiration loss increased; yield reduced due to rapid soil moisture depletion[35]
Malus prunifolia1 mM NH4NO3Net NH4+ influx increased; AMT1;2 and AMT4;2 up-regulated; biomass and photosynthesis higher than low-N drought group[31]

2.2. Regulatory Mechanisms of N Signaling and N Assimilation Metabolism on Drought Stress

N form and AQP synergistically regulate hydraulic homeostasis and stomatal optimization. The rapid signaling interplay between N form and AQP regulation constitutes a frontline defense mechanism against early drought. Nitrate acts as a potent signal, inducing within 1–3 h the transient transcriptional upregulation and possible post-translational activation (e.g., via phosphorylation) of specific plasma membrane intrinsic proteins (PIPs), notably PIP1;2 and PIP2;1 isoforms [36,37]. This rapid response significantly enhances Lpr and Kleaf [38,39]. Enhanced hydraulic conductance allows plants to maintain partial stomatal opening during the initial stages of drought, preserving CO2 influx for photosynthesis while minimizing water loss—a delicate balance critical for early stress acclimation [40]. This dual benefit of water conservation and photoprotection highlights the signaling role of NO3 beyond nutrition.
The integration of N and drought signaling pathways involves key regulatory nodes. In Arabidopsis thaliana, the calcium-dependent protein kinase CPK6 is transcriptionally up-regulated by abscisic acid (ABA) accumulation under the combined stress of high nitrate (10 mM NO3) and drought [41]. Activated CPK6 phosphorylates the dual-affinity nitrate transporter NRT1.1 (CHL1) at a specific threonine residue (Thr101 in Arabidopsis; equivalent to Thr571 in some reports). This phosphorylation event specifically inhibits NRT1.1′s low-affinity nitrate transport activity without affecting its high-affinity function [42]. This molecular switch effectively reduces nitrate influx under stress conditions, contributing to a decrease in transpiration rate (likely linked to reduce osmoticum accumulation or altered stomatal signaling) while ensuring a sustained, albeit modulated, supply of nitrate to the shoots. This coordinated response enhances overall survival under severe drought, exemplifying a genetically targetable water–N crosstalk pathway amenable to manipulation for improved stress tolerance [43].
N supply optimizes metabolic flux, conserving energy and redirecting reductive power. Drought stress necessitates a profound reorganization of primary metabolism, and N assimilation is central to this reprogramming. The rice (Oryza sativa) C2H2-type zinc finger transcription factor drought and salt tolerance (DST) serves as a critical regulator at the nexus of N metabolism and drought response. Under well-watered conditions, DST directly activates the expression of OsNR1.2, encoding a major nitrate reductase (NR) isoform, promoting the reduction of NO3 to NO2. However, upon drought perception, DST is rapidly transcriptionally repressed or post-translationally inactivated. This leads to a significant downregulation (up to 65%) of OsNR1.2 transcript levels, drastically slowing the conversion of NO3 to NO2 [44]. This strategic metabolic throttling conserves substantial amounts of reductant (NAD(P)H) and ATP that would otherwise be consumed by NR and subsequent nitrite reduction steps.
Maintaining the glutamine synthetase/glutamate synthase (GS/GOGAT) cycle homeostasis is critical under drought. While NR activity is often suppressed, sustaining GS/GOGAT cycle is paramount for incorporating ammonium into amino acids and preventing toxic NH4+ buildup, especially water stress [45]. Studies on winter wheat revealed that under moderate N supply (≈7 mM total N), even when drought significantly inhibited NR activity, the combined activities of cytosolic GS1 and chloroplastic Fd-GOGAT remained remarkably resilient, maintaining 80–90% of their activity levels observed in unstressed controls [34]. This metabolic stability ensures the continued assimilation of NH4+ (whether derived from residual NR activity, photorespiration, or protein turnover) into glutamine and glutamate, the primary amino donors for biosynthesis. Sustained GS/GOGAT flux prevents a critical metabolic imbalance: the uncoupling of carbon fixation (which may continue at reduced rates) from N assimilation [46]. Such uncoupling would lead to the deleterious accumulation of soluble sugars (e.g., sucrose, hexoses) and compatible solutes (e.g., proline, glycine betaine) to osmotically detrimental levels, exacerbating cellular dehydration and potentially triggering feedback inhibition of photosynthesis or premature senescence [47,48].

2.3. Antioxidant and Osmotic Regulation Mechanisms Mediated by N Under Drought

Drought-induced cellular dehydration is invariably accompanied by a massive overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), including superoxide anion (O2), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radicals (•OH), primarily originating from impaired photosynthetic electron transport in chloroplasts and enhanced respiratory activity in mitochondria [49,50]. Accumulated ROS inflict severe oxidative damage on cellular components-oxidizing lipids (membrane disintegration), proteins (enzyme inactivation, carbonylation), and nucleic acids (mutations, strand breaks) ultimately leading to cell death and organ dysfunction [51]. Optimal N nutrition serves as a crucial metabolic buffer under these conditions, modulating the plant’s capacity to manage ROS levels and maintain cellular osmotic potential (Ψs), thereby bolstering cellular integrity, membrane stability, and overall drought tolerance [52,53]. This regulation typically exhibits a distinct threshold or optimum.
For instance, sunflower (Helianthus annuus) plants subjected to drought stress displayed a synchronized increase in the activities of key antioxidant enzymes-superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POD) within the N application range of 80–120 kg N ha−1 [54]. This enhanced enzymatic defense correlated with significant physiological recovery: leaf relative water content (RWC) and Pn reached 90% and 85% of their well-watered, N-sufficient control values, respectively. However, exceeding this optimal range (>150 kg N ha−1) proved detrimental, as N surplus triggered a secondary oxidative burst, likely due to metabolic imbalance, increased respiratory load, or photorespiratory H2O2 overproduction, negating the initial protective effects and exacerbating stress symptoms [54]. Similarly, drought-stressed maize seedlings supplied with 7.5 mM N exhibited a 1.8-fold increase in NR activity and tissue NO3 concentration, while concurrently reducing H2O2 and O2 levels by over 40% compared to N-deficient stressed plants [29]. This highlights the role of N in both boosting N status and enhancing ROS scavenging capacity (Table 2).
N actively primes the antioxidant defense system. Drought-stressed cotton seedlings receiving 5 mM N showed pronounced upregulation of ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and glutathione reductase (GR) activities, alongside increased accumulation of the non-enzymatic antioxidants reduced glutathione (GSH) and ascorbate (ASA). This integrated response culminated in malondialdehyde (MDA) levels being reduced to only 55% of those measured in drought-stressed, low-N plants, indicating significantly less membrane damage [55]. N also profoundly influences osmotic adjustment, a key mechanism for maintaining cell turgor and hydration under water deficit. In maize subjected to severe PEG-induced drought combined with 180 kg N ha−1 fertilization, the enzymatic pathways for proline synthesis, namely Δ1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (P5CS) and ornithine aminotransferase (OAT), were significantly activated. Consequently, proline accumulation increased by 24% compared to low-N stressed plants. Proline serves a dual function, acting as a potent compatible osmolyte to lower cellular osmotic potential and retain water, and serving as a direct scavenger of •OH radicals, thus protecting protein structure and membrane integrity [56]. Wheat plants under deficit irrigation (60% of crop evapotranspiration) supplemented with 0.6 g N kg−1 soil showed a 30% increase in soluble sugars (e.g., sucrose, fructans) and a 22% increase in soluble proteins, alongside a 28% reduction in electrolyte leakage (a measure of membrane damage) [57]. This demonstrates capacity of N to remodel carbon–N metabolism, promoting the accumulation of osmotically active compounds that contribute to cellular turgor maintenance and membrane stabilization under dehydration stress.
Notably, N-mediated antioxidant and osmotic regulation often synergizes with potassium (K), a primary counterion of NO3 during root uptake [58]. K maintains vacuolar nitrate storage and cytoplasmic ion homeostasis, thereby indirectly enhancing N’s role in osmotic adjustment. For example, in maize, the combined application of N and K increased proline accumulation compared to N alone, while also reducing H2O2 levels through enhanced SOD activity [59]. K also stabilizes the ascorbate–glutathione cycle by maintaining GR enzyme structure, which amplifies N-induced APX activity [60]. This N-K synergy is critical for avoiding ionic imbalances (e.g., Na+ overaccumulation) under drought, as NO3 and K+ co-transport reduces the risk of toxic cation uptake. Thus, neglecting K supply may limit the efficacy of N-based drought mitigation strategies.
Beyond biochemical adjustments, N influences structural components that enhance hydraulic and mechanical resilience [52]. Studies demonstrated that wheat grown under deficit irrigation and supplied with 0.6 g N kg−1 soil developed significantly reinforced vascular and sclerenchyma tissues. Specifically, xylem vessel diameters increased by 18%, enhancing hydraulic conductivity under tension, while the thickness of sclerenchyma fibers surrounding vascular bundles increased by 25% [57]. This structural reinforcement improves mechanical strength and, critically, helps prevent or delay the propagation of drought-induced xylem cavitation (air embolisms), which can severely disrupt water transport [61,62].
Despite consistent evidence that moderate N enhances antioxidant activity, controversies persist regarding the thresholds for excessive application. Research has shown that secondary oxidative stress can occur in sunflower at N levels exceeding 150 kg N ha−1 [54]. In contrast, other studies have found no such effect in cotton even at applications above 200 kg N ha−1 [55]. This discrepancy may stem from crop-specific ROS scavenging capacity or soil water holding capacity. Additionally, most studies are based on single drought events, whereas long-term intermittent drought may alter the role of N. Research indicates that species such as Leymus chinensis required approximately 20% more N to maintain Fv/Fm under repeated drought conditions, which can be attributed to cumulative N losses through leaching [27]. These gaps highlight the need for crop-soil-climate specific N recommendations.

2.4. N-Mediated Root Morphology and Optimized Resource Acquisition Under Drought Stress

Root system architecture (RSA) is a primary determinant of a plant’s ability to forage for essential soil resources, particularly water and N, under limiting conditions [63,64]. N availability acts as a powerful morphogenic signal that dynamically reshapes RSA in response to drought. This process manifests through three predominant, often contrasting patterns: moderate N in the upper layer induces deeper root penetration into subsoil strata; low N promotes fine root proliferation to enhance absorptive surface area within explored soil volumes [65]; and high N favors shallow rooting, restricting exploration predominantly to surface layers while often reducing overall root investment relative to shoots [66]. Both extremes compromise the plant’s drought adaptability: excessive N triggers rapid depletion of surface soil moisture through intensified transpiration, whereas N deficiency restricts access to deep soil water due to insufficient root biomass. In contrast, moderate N levels achieve an optimal balance between deep root growth and fine root density, enabling maximal utilization of both deep soil moisture and nitrate. This demonstrates that suboptimal N levels (i.e., not the highest levels)—relative to well-watered conditions—actually enhance drought-induced root plasticity [67].
Pot experiments simulating Northeast China’s rainfed conditions for maize clearly demonstrated the benefits of moderate N under drought. A 30% reduction in N application (simulating moderate N input) under concomitant moderate drought stress stimulated a 30–50% increase in root length density (RLD) specifically in soil layers below 40 cm depth. Critically, fine root RLD (diameter < 0.5 mm) reached 0.30 cm−3 in these deeper layers [68]. This architectural remodeling involves sophisticated signaling, which is as follows: perception of localized NO3 gradients, auxin (IAA) redistribution directing growth towards N-rich patches, and activation of the sucrose non-fermenting-1-related kinase 1 (SnRK1) energy-sensing pathway which influences carbon allocation and sugar transporter expression, facilitating carbon export to support root growth in resource-rich zones [69,70]. The resulting deep root column phenotype, with enhanced lateral root branching, significantly improved access to deep water, boosting WUE to 4.1 g L−1, and enhanced nitrate capture efficiency, increasing NUE by 55% compared to conventional high-N management [68] (Table 3). In stark contrast, maize subjected to extreme drought combined with complete N deprivation exhibited a passive survival strategy. While the taproot might elongate somewhat in search of water, total root biomass plummeted, and the specific N uptake rate per unit root length dropped to merely one-third of that observed under adequate N, resulting in the poorest resource capture efficiency and minimal growth [71].
High N fertilization consistently induces a shallow root system phenotype, characterized by reduced root depth exploration, a lower root-to-shoot biomass ratio (R/S), and often excessive shoot growth (leaf area expansion). This root system architecture is inherently vulnerable under drought conditions for three key reasons. First, shallow roots predominantly access surface soil layers that dry most rapidly. Second, high N elevates canopy transpirational demand by increasing leaf area index (LAI). Finally, deep soil nitrate reserves remain underutilized due to insufficient root exploration. Consequently, high-N plants develop disproportionate vulnerability to water stress. This manifests through elevated evapotranspiration accelerating soil moisture depletion, inefficient deep N utilization, and ultimately significant reductions in both WUE and NUE [72,73,74]. This vulnerability is amplified when drought occurs post-anthesis in cereals relying on remobilized N from deeper roots [75,76].
The principle extends beyond annual crops to woody perennials. Catalpa bungei seedlings supplied with sufficient N and exposed to V-PRD where only part of the root system is watered-activated a synergistic response: proliferation of fine roots in the moist zone and radial expansion of xylem vessels [77]. The synergistic effect of deep root exploration and large vessel conductance substantially improved hydraulic efficiency and drought survival rates in seedlings, outperforming those subjected to uniform drought or inadequate N supply [78]. In grassland ecosystems, functional diversity dictates species-specific responses to N addition under drought. Shallow-rooted grass species (e.g., Lolium perenne) often show a positive yield response to top-dressing with moderate N (e.g., 60 kg N ha−1) during severe drought, potentially compensating for stress-induced growth reduction and promoting post-drought regrowth [79]. Deep-rooted N-fixing legumes such as Medicago sativa contrastingly demonstrate minimal responsiveness to mineral N supplementation. Their dependence on symbiotic N fixation and subsoil water resources largely decouples them from soil mineral N pools while deep roots simultaneously buffer water stress particularly during drought [80,81].
Rational agronomic management prioritizing balanced N-water regimes—exemplified by regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) or partial root-zone drying (PRD)—harnesses inherent RSA plasticity [82,83]. This strategy activates the nitrate gradient-NRT1.1 auxin signaling pathway [84,85] while promoting development of synergistic deep-rooted frameworks integrated with dense fine root networks. Concurrent integration with the PIP-NRT2-nitric oxide metabolic system [86,87,88] enables synchronous capture of deep soil water and nitrate resources. Consequently this approach establishes viable pathways for dual enhancement of agricultural water-use and N-use efficiencies within arid and semi-arid ecosystems [89,90].
Notably, the optimal N concentration for root morphological adaptation (e.g., deep rooting in maize: 30% reduced N input [68]) is lower than that for antioxidant/osmotic defense (e.g., sunflower: 80–120 kg N ha−1 [54]) or photosynthesis maintenance (maize: 7.5 mM [29]). This difference occurs because root proliferation under low N conditions prioritizes resource foraging through energy allocation to roots. In contrast, antioxidant defense and photosynthesis require higher N inputs for the synthesis of key enzymes such as SOD and Rubisco. These distinct N demands underscore the importance of stage-specific N management—for instance, limiting N supply during the seedling stage to promote root development, while providing moderate N during flowering to support defense mechanisms.

2.5. Drought Adaptation Mechanisms of BNF Systems

BNF, the enzymatic reduction of atmospheric N2 to ammonia by rhizobia symbiotically housed within legume root nodules, is an energy-intensive process highly sensitive to environmental perturbations, particularly drought. Drought stress rapidly compromises BNF through two interconnected mechanisms. First soil desiccation reduces nodule water potential, diminishing bacteroid hydration and metabolic activity. Second impaired canopy photosynthesis restricts sucrose supply to nodules limiting energy provision for nitrogenase function and bacteroid respiration [91,92]. Consequently, Nase enzyme activity (commonly monitored via the nifH gene product) and the concentration of oxygen-binding leghaemoglobin (essential for maintaining the microaerobic conditions required for Nase function) decline precipitously [93] (Table 4). Critically, BNF inhibition often manifests before significant reductions in whole-plant photosynthesis become apparent, making it one of the most drought-sensitive components of legume physiology [91,94]. Split-root experiments with pea (Pisum sativum) provided elegant proof that this inhibition is primarily localized: nodules on roots within the drying soil compartment exhibited a sharp decline in N fixation rate, while nodules on roots in the well-watered compartment maintained near-normal activity. This demonstrates that the inhibition stems directly from the localized drop in water potential and/or carbon supply within the affected root zone, rather than being solely governed by systemic whole-plant N status feedback signals [95]. Addressing this localized nodule inactivation bottleneck requires integrated management strategies targeting the nodule microenvironment and whole-plant carbon economy.
Co-inoculation with osmotolerant Bradyrhizobium elkanii and Azospirillum brasilense (a plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)) enhances soybean drought tolerance by stabilizing nifH expression and Nase activity [96,97]. Under normal water conditions, this co-inoculation increases nodule number and grain yield compared to single Bradyrhizobium elkanii inoculation, with no significant competition—likely due to niche differentiation (Azospirillum brasilense colonizes rhizosphere, Bradyrhizobium elkanii forms nodules) [98,99]. Cost-wise, the additional PGPR inoculant increases input costs, but field trials in Brazil show more return on investment via yield gains [100]. However, efficacy declines in high-fertility soils, as excess mineral N suppresses nodulation [101].
Deployment of slow-wilting soybean genotypes combined with water conservation management confers inherent physiological advantages. This approach leverages cultivars demonstrating delayed canopy wilting phenotypes under water deficit conditions typically associated with deeper rooting systems or conservative water-use strategies [96]. Combining these genotypes with soil management practices that enhance water retention is synergistic. No-till farming and organic amendments (e.g., cover crops) enhance soil water-holding capacity, reducing nodule inactivation by 30–40% under drought and sustaining carbon supply to nodules for BNF [102,103,104].
Strategic supplemental N fertilization can be effective during severe drought coinciding with peak crop demand periods such as soybean pod filling. At this physiological stage BNF suppression creates substantial N deficits inadequately compensated by soil mineralization or residual soil N. Applying a moderate supplemental dose (40–60 kg N ha−1) of a balanced N source like NH4NO3 during the most acute drought phase can temporarily bridge this N gap. Field studies indicate this strategy can increase final soybean yield by 15–25% under severe drought compared to relying solely on compromised BNF [105,106]. However, precision is paramount: higher application rates (>80 kg N ha−1) typically offer no additional yield benefit and can be detrimental. Excessive mineral N especially ammonium ions suppresses residual BNF activity while inhibiting long-term nodule formation and function. More critically it stimulates disproportionate vegetative growth and transpiration thereby exacerbating plant water stress and potentially negating yield gains [4,101].
This synergistic strategy integrating drought-adapted rhizobia delayed-canopy-wilting genotypes water-conserving management and minimal supplemental N establishes multi-tiered drought resilience. The approach functions across three spatial scales: nodule-level osmoprotection enhancing bacteroid resilience rhizosphere-scale moisture retention improving soil structure and field-level canopy water conservation coupled with precision N supplementation. Together these buffers significantly mitigate drought impacts on symbiotic N fixation systems creating robust physiological foundations for stable soybean yield and other essential legume crops in drought-vulnerable agroecosystems [107,108].
While co-inoculation with osmotolerant rhizobia enhances BNF under drought conditions, its effectiveness depends on soil pH. Research shows that the resulting yield increase is significantly higher in acidic soils compared to alkaline environments, which may be attributed to poorer rhizobial survival under alkaline conditions [96,109]. Additionally, supplemental N during pod filling may suppress residual BNF in some cultivars (e.g., Williams 82 soybean) [110], indicating genetic variation in BNF sensitivity to mineral N. These inconsistencies emphasize the need for integrated genotype-microbe-N management.
Table 4. Strategies for maintaining BNF in legumes under drought.
Table 4. Strategies for maintaining BNF in legumes under drought.
Regulation StrategyTechnical DetailsEffects Under Drought ConditionsReference
Inoculation with drought-tolerant rhizobia and PGPRCo-inoculation with osmotic stress-tolerant rhizobia (e.g., Bradyrhizobium elkanii) and PGPR (e.g., Azospirillum brasilense)Stabilized nifH gene expression and Nase activity; soybean yield increased by 15–25% compared to single rhizobia inoculation[96]
Water-retentive soil managementNo-till combined with organic amendments to enhance soil organic matter (SOM) and water-holding capacityReduced nodule inactivation by 30–40%; sustained carbon supply to nodules; alleviated BNF inhibition[104]
Use of slow-wilting genotypesSelection of deep-rooted or water-conservative cultivars; delayed canopy wilting under water deficitMitigated drought impacts on nodule water potential; maintained BNF function until grain filling[96]
Targeted N supplementationApplication of 40–60 kg N ha−1 NH4NO3 during critical drought stages (e.g., soybean pod filling); avoidance of excessive N to prevent BNF suppressionTemporarily compensated for reduced BNF; yield increased by 15–25% vs. sole reliance on BNF; high N (>80 kg N ha−1) ineffective or harmful[105]

2.6. N Regulation Strategies Under Multiple Stress Scenarios

Climate change is driving an increase in the frequency and intensity of compound abiotic stress events, where plants simultaneously or sequentially experience combinations like high temperature (heat), drought, and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations [111,112]. Under complex drought scenarios simplistic N maximization paradigms prove obsolete requiring nuanced fertilizer management. N application functions as a dual-effect tool demanding rigorous optimization to prevent stress amplification while maintaining productivity [113]. Research on winter wheat experiencing concurrent heat stress (36/26 °C day/night) and soil water deficit (45–55% field capacity) during the sensitive jointing stage revealed that a medium N application rate (≈21 g N m−2) outperformed the traditional high N rate (≈30 g N m−2). Medium N better sustained stomatal conductance and modulated instantaneous transpiration, allowing Pn and WUE to increase synchronously by 15–20% compared to high N. The high N treatment amplified water loss through excessive transpiration, ultimately reducing grain yield due to accelerated soil moisture depletion and possible heat damage under constrained water supply [35].
The interaction with elevated CO2 adds another layer of complexity. While CO2 enrichment (e.g., 800 ppm) typically stimulates Pn and improves WUE in C3 plants by reducing photorespiration and stomatal conductance, it simultaneously induces leaf carbon-to-N (C:N) dilution [114,115]. This dilution occurs because the increased carbon assimilation outpaces N uptake and assimilation, leading to a relative N deficiency that can constrain protein synthesis and growth [116]. Studies on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) grown under 800 ppm CO2 confirmed that moderate, split N applications (100–200 kg N ha−1 total) effectively compensated for CO2 induced C:N dilution, supporting leaf N concentration and protein content while avoiding excessive transpiration [18].
N chemical form also exhibits significant combination buffering effects under stress. Experiments simulating atmospheric N deposition on wheat showed that depositing only nitrate or only ammonium during mid-to-late growth stages depressed Pn compared to background conditions. However, depositing a mixture of NO3, NH4+, and urea (mimicking a more realistic, complex N deposition scenario) mitigated this photosynthetic decline [117]. The mixed N source likely provided greater metabolic flexibility, buffered rhizosphere pH fluctuations, and reduced ion-specific toxicity risks associated with single N forms under stress [33].
Furthermore precise alignment of N application timing with critical crop developmental stages termed the window effect determines efficacy under multifactorial stress conditions. Research on barley demonstrated that supplying moderate N during the tillering stage significantly increased tiller number and established a higher yield potential. However, maintaining high N availability into the later grain-filling stages under terminal drought proved detrimental. The high N status forced stomatal closure earlier and more severely as soil moisture declined, impaired the remobilization of stem reserves to grains, and resulted in significant reductions in both WUE and thousand-kernel weight [118]. This validation confirms preemptive N allocation with reproductive-phase restriction as an effective staged management strategy. Early vegetative N investment establishes canopy architecture and yield potential while subsequent N restriction during reproductive stages promotes conservative water utilization and efficient nutrient remobilization under projected drought stress [119].
Synthesizing empirical evidence from diverse crops and stress scenarios, the following refined N management principles emerge for multi-stress environments. To enhance resilience and productivity stability under increasingly variable and stressful climatic conditions, adhere to these N management principles. Under combined heat and drought stress, reduce total N application by 20–30% relative to standard practice, using split applications, to balance photosynthetic carbon gain with transpirational water loss and mitigate heat-enhanced sensitivity to ammonium. Under elevated CO2 with drought, employ moderate total N inputs, such as 80–120% optimal N dose adjusted for crop and soil, delivered in split applications to counteract carbon-to-N dilution while supporting sustained protein synthesis; avoid single large doses that stimulate excessive transpiration. Replace uniform high-N regimes with dynamic stage-optimized strategies, prioritizing N supply during tillering and vegetative establishment to build yield potential while consciously restricting N availability during sensitive reproductive stages, especially under drought risk, to promote water conservation, remobilization efficiency, and grain filling. Utilize blended N sources where possible for enhanced buffering capacity. This approach facilitates the concurrent optimization of photosynthetic performance, WUE, and NUE [120].

2.7. Molecular Regulatory Mechanisms and Breeding Targets

Advances in multi-omics technologies (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) and functional genomics have begun to unravel the intricate molecular circuitry connecting N sensing, hydraulic regulation, metabolic reprogramming, and the manifestation of drought tolerance phenotypes [121,122]. This knowledge provides a blueprint for targeted genetic improvement.
The DST-NR node, involving the C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor DST in rice, functions in energy conservation and ROS management by directly binding to the OsNR1.2 promoter to activate its expression under favorable conditions, thereby driving nitrate reduction. Drought stress triggers rapid suppression of the DST-NR axis (via transcriptional down-regulation and/or post-translational modification), leading to a sharp decline in NR activity [44]. This strategic down-regulation conserves substantial pools of NAD(P)H and ATP. The conserved energy is redirected towards sustaining vital antioxidant pathways (e.g., ascorbate–glutathione cycle) essential for detoxifying drought-induced ROS [123,124]. Furthermore, limiting NR activity reduces the risk of toxic nitrite accumulation and minimizes over-reduction of the photosynthetic electron transport chain, a major source of ROS under stress [125]. Consequently, DST emerges as a high-priority molecular target for simultaneously enhancing drought survival and NUE. Allelic variants of DST or its orthologs associated with moderate NR suppression under stress offer significant potential for breeding [126].
Nitrate acts as a potent signal rapidly inducing the expression of specific PIPs, notably PIP1;2 and PIP2;1, thereby enhancing AQP function for improved hydraulic efficiency. This upregulation enhances Lpr and Kleaf, facilitating water movement under drought and helping maintain stomatal conductance for CO2 uptake [36,37,127]. In the woody species Catalpa bungei, this PIP-mediated hydraulic enhancement synergizes with drought-induced xylem vessel enlargement to form a highly efficient deep root-large vessel water acquisition and transport system [28]. Engineering crops with enhanced PIP expression or stability, particularly in roots and vascular tissues, is a potential strategy for improving drought tolerance through better water management [128].
Maintaining high flux through the GS/GOGAT cycle is crucial for carbon-N homeostasis under drought, enabling effective ammonium assimilation, prevention of NH4+ toxicity, and sustained amino acid production for growth and stress protection [129]. Key enzymes include cytosolic GS1 (especially GS1;2 isoforms) and chloroplastic Fd-GOGAT. Alleles associated with sustained high activity of these enzymes under combined N and water stress have been identified in germplasm screens of wheat and maize [130,131]. Introgressing these favorable alleles into elite lines has shown potential for improving grain yield and NUE under drought, likely by preventing carbon-N imbalance and associated metabolic dysfunction [132].
Systems biology approaches integrating transcriptomics across developmental stages and stress treatments have identified core co-expressed gene networks associated with deep rooting and high NUE for QTL pyramiding. These loci show strong statistical association with traits like deep root mass, deep water extraction capacity, and high NUE in field trials. They are prime candidates for CRISPR-Cas9 mediated gene editing and for marker-assisted pyramiding in breeding programs [133,134]. Proof-of-concept was demonstrated in wheat (Triticum aestivum), where transgenic lines simultaneously overexpressing the AQP TaPIP2;1 under a stress-inducible promoter and suppressing TaDST expression via RNAi or CRISPR showed synergistic improvements. These lines exhibited significantly increased WUE and NUE under controlled drought stress compared to wild-type or single-gene modified plants [135], validating the feasibility and potential of morpho-physiological dual-target editing strategies.
In summary, the convergence of multiple molecular pathways-spanning DST-mediated N metabolic economy, AQP-facilitated hydraulic efficiency, GS/GOGAT-driven assimilation stability, and QTLs governing deep rooting and efficient N utilization-alongside natural allelic variations discovered through genomics, delineates a suite of high-value target regions for molecular breeding. Harnessing these targets through advanced gene editing marker-assisted selection and genomic prediction offers strong potential for developing less N-demanding more drought-resilient crop varieties thereby establishing a crucial molecular foundation for climate-smart agriculture [136].

3. Conclusions

This review synthesizes compelling evidence that judicious N management, characterized by moderate total inputs corresponding to 70–90% of the optimal N dose and optimization of N form, activates a multifaceted suite of physiological and molecular mechanisms that collectively enhance plant resilience to drought stress. In most crops, nitrate is the preferred form, although ammonium may be more beneficial in certain species with specific physiological adaptations. These mechanisms operate across multiple organizational scales to improve WUE, NUE, and overall drought adaptability.
At the molecular level, nitrate acts as a rapid signaling molecule that upregulates the expression of PIPs, such as PIP1;2 and PIP2;1, thereby enhancing Lpr and Kleaf. Concurrently, drought-induced suppression of the DST–NR axis conserves energy and reductant actions, redirecting resources toward ROS detoxification. Maintenance of the GS/GOGAT cycle ensures continuous assimilation of ammonium into amino acids, preventing NH4+ toxicity and metabolic uncoupling of carbon and N metabolism.
At the cellular levels, optimal N availability enhances the antioxidant defense system, elevating the activities of enzymes such as SOD, CAT, APX and GR, alongside increasing non-enzymatic antioxidants (ascorbate and glutathione). It also stimulates the biosynthesis and accumulation of key osmolytes, such as proline, soluble sugars including sucrose and fructans, and glycine betaine, all of which contribute to osmotic adjustment and membrane stabilization.
At the organ levels, moderate N promotes advantageous morphological plasticity within the root system, encouraging deeper rooting (mediated by auxin signaling, nitrate gradients, and DRO1-like genes) and fine root proliferation, significantly improving access to deep soil water and nitrate reserves. Structurally, N reinforcement of xylem vessels and sclerenchyma tissues enhances hydraulic efficiency and reduces cavitation risk.
At the symbiotic system level, co-inoculation with osmotolerant rhizobia (e.g., Bradyrhizobium elkanii) and PGPR (e.g., Azospirillum brasilense), combined with soil conservation practices (e.g., no-till farming, organic amendments), improves nodule tolerance to low water potential and helps sustain carbon supply, partially maintaining BNF under drought. Strategic, low-dose supplemental N application (50–70% of optimal NH4NO3) during peak drought can temporarily compensate for suppressed BNF, protecting yield.
The synergistic operation of these mechanisms enhances net photosynthetic carbon gain, improves WUE, and boosts NUE. However, the efficacy of N-mediated drought mitigation is highly dependent on interactions among crop genotype, soil properties (e.g., texture, organic matter, inherent fertility), climate conditions (e.g., temperature, radiation, humidity), and the timing, intensity, and duration of drought stress. Crucially, exceeding the optimal N threshold can reverse benefits, inducing secondary oxidative stress, metabolic imbalance, excessive transpiration, and increased vulnerability to other stresses (Figure 1).

4. Prospects

Future research should prioritize closing critical knowledge gaps and developing translational solutions to optimize N management for drought resilience across diverse agroecosystems. Key directions involve advancing real-time precision N management by leveraging remote sensing, proximal sensors, and mechanistic crop models integrated with machine learning to dynamically define spatially and temporally variable optimal N windows under current and predicted drought conditions, while also developing user-friendly decision support systems for farmers [137,138,139]. Future efforts should prioritize multi-scale digital integration using digital twin platforms capable of simulating N–drought interactions across biological and agronomic levels, ranging from subcellular processes to whole-canopy dynamics. Such integration will accelerate hypothesis testing and support the optimization of management strategies through in silico modeling [140]. Additionally, integrated soil–plant–microbe management approaches are essential, combining high-throughput screening of drought-adapted microbes with region-specific conservation tillage and organic matter management, validated through long-term multi-location field trials to generate locally adapted guidelines [141,142]. Finally, precision molecular breeding should utilize high-resolution genomics and genome editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas to target key genes involved in N-enhanced drought tolerance, while employing machine learning-based genomic prediction to accelerate the development of resilient elite cultivars [143,144,145].
The ultimate goal is the co-development and deployment of an integrated technological framework encompassing precision N application (based on dynamic percentage regulation of the local optimal N dose), microbial symbiont synergy, advanced molecular breeding, and AI-driven intelligent decision support. This holistic approach may contribute to the transition toward high-yielding, resource-efficient (low N, high water productivity), and climate-resilient agricultural systems, essential for ensuring sustainable food security in the face of escalating water scarcity and climate volatility in arid and semi-arid regions worldwide.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, X.S. and P.W.; writing—review and editing, L.Y., Q.M. and Y.G.; funding acquisition, X.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (2025D01B179) and the Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2202999999990250002).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, R.X.; Sun, H.Q.; Xing, L.S.; Li, R.Z.; Li, M.; Zhang, Q. Effects of anthropogenic climate change on the drought characteristics in China: From frequency, duration, intensity, and affected area. J. Hydrol. 2023, 617, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chiang, F.; Mazdiyasni, O.; AghaKouchak, A. Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Seleiman, M.F.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; Ali, N.; Akmal, M.; Alotaibi, M.; Refay, Y.; Dindaroglu, T.; Abdul-Wajid, H.H.; Battaglia, M.L. Drought Stress Impacts on Plants and Different Approaches to Alleviate Its Adverse Effects. Plants 2021, 10, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bhattacharya, A. Effect of soil water deficit on growth and development of plants: A review. In Soil Water Deficit and Physiological Issues in Plants; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 393–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chaves, M.M.; Maroco, J.P.; Pereira, J.S. Understanding plant responses to drought—From genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barnabás, B.; Jäger, K.; Fehér, A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 11–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zandalinas, S.I.; Mittler, R.; Balfagón, D.; Arbona, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. Plant adaptations to the combination of drought and high temperatures. Physiol. Plant. 2018, 162, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Krouk, G. Hormones and nitrate: A two-way connection. Plant Mol. Biol. 2016, 91, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Vidal, E.A.; Alvarez, J.M.; Araus, V.; Riveras, E.; Brooks, M.D.; Krouk, G.; Ruffel, S.; Lejay, L.; Crawford, N.M.; Coruzzi, G.M.; et al. Nitrate in 2020: Thirty Years from Transport to Signaling Networks. Plant Cell 2020, 32, 2094–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Patel, J.; Khatri, K.; Khandwal, D.; Gupta, N.K.; Choudhary, B.; Hapani, D.; Koshiya, J.; Syed, S.N.; Phillips, D.W.; Jones, H.D.; et al. Modulation of physio-biochemical and photosynthesis parameters by overexpressing SbPIP2 gene improved abiotic stress tolerance of transgenic tobacco. Physiol. Plant. 2024, 176, e14384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, G.; Gu, L.; Shi, Y.; Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Lu, F.; Ren, Z.; Wang, Y.; Lu, H.; Tabassum, A.; et al. Plant hydraulic conductivity determines photosynthesis in rice under PEG-induced drought stress. Pak. J. Bot. 2021, 53, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Razi, K.; Muneer, S. Drought stress-induced physiological mechanisms, signaling pathways and molecular response of chloroplasts in common vegetable crops. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2021, 41, 669–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sun, X.; Chen, F.; Yuan, L.; Mi, G. The physiological mechanism underlying root elongation in response to nitrogen deficiency in crop plants. Planta 2020, 251, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Serraj, R.; Sinclair, T.R.; Purcell, L.C. Symbiotic N2 fixation response to drought. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. King, C.A.; Purcell, L.C. Soybean nodule size and relationship to nitrogen fixation response to water deficit. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1099–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Balkos, K.D.; Britto, D.T.; Kronzucker, H.J. Optimization of ammonium acquisition and metabolism by potassium in rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. IR-72). Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Xiang, L.S.; Miao, L.F.; Yang, F. Drought and Nitrogen Application Modulate the Morphological and Physiological Responses of Dalbergia odorifera to Different Niche Neighbors. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chen, Y.T.; Wei, Z.H.; Wan, H.; Zhang, J.R.; Liu, J.; Liu, F.L. CO2 Elevation and Nitrogen Supply Alter the Growth and Physiological Responses of Tomato and Barley Plants to Drought Stress. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cerda, A.; Alvarez, J.M. Insights into molecular links and transcription networks integrating drought stress and nitrogen signaling. New Phytol. 2024, 241, 560–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. He, M.; Dijkstra, F.A. Drought effect on plant nitrogen and phosphorus: A meta-analysis. New Phytol. 2014, 204, 924–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Evans, J.R.; Clarke, V.C. The nitrogen cost of photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, M.; Ding, L.; Gao, L.M.; Li, Y.R.; Shen, Q.R.; Guo, S.W. The Interactions of Aquaporins and Mineral Nutrients in Higher Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Clarkson, D.T.; Carvajal, M.; Henzler, T.; Waterhouse, R.N.; Smyth, A.J.; Cooke, D.T.; Steudle, E. Root hydraulic conductance: Diurnal aquaporin expression and the effects of nutrient stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Flexas, J.; Barbour, M.M.; Brendel, O.; Cabrera, H.M.; Carriquí, M.; Díaz-Espejo, A.; Douthe, C.; Dreyerc, E.; Ferrio, J.P.; Gago, J.; et al. Corrigendum to ‘Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO2: An unappreciated central player in photosynthesis. Plant Sci. 2012, 196, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lawson, T.; Blatt, M.R. Stomatal size, speed, and responsiveness impact on photosynthesis and water use efficiency. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164, 1556–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Plett, D.C.; Ranathunge, K.; Melino, V.J.; Kuya, N.; Uga, Y.; Kronzucker, H.J. The intersection of nitrogen nutrition and water use in plants: New paths toward improved crop productivity. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4452–4468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wei, X.W.; Han, L.; Xu, N.; Sun, M.Y.; Yang, X.C. Nitrate nitrogen enhances the efficiency of photoprotection in Leymus chinensis under drought stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wang, J.; Qin, X.; Xu, S.; Zhao, M.; Shu, P.; Xu, F.; Ma, J.; Sun, Y.; Dong, H.; Guo, Z.; et al. Nitrogen availability affects stem development and response to differential root-zone drought stress in Catalpa bungei. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021, 186, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Song, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, M.; Meng, Z.; Liu, K.; Sui, N. Nitrogen increases drought tolerance in maize seedlings. Funct. Plant Biol. 2019, 46, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Fan, X.L.; Li, Y.K. Effect of Drought Stress and Drought Tolerance Heredity on Nitrogen Efficiency of Winter Wheat; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 62–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, L.L.; Li, M.J.; Zhou, K.; Sun, T.T.; Hu, L.Y.; Li, C.Y.; Ma, F.W. Uptake and metabolism of ammonium and nitrate in response to drought stress in Malus prunifolia. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 127, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hao, D.-L.; Zhou, J.-Y.; Yang, S.-Y.; Qi, W.; Yang, K.-J.; Su, Y.-H. Function and regulation of ammonium transporters in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, Z.; Yan, H.; Liu, H.; Yang, L.; Mi, G.; Wang, P. Enhancing Crop Nitrogen Efficiency: The Role of Mixed Nitrate and Ammonium Supply in Plant Growth and Development. Biology 2025, 14, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gayatri; Jayaraman, K.; Sinha, S.K.; Roy, P.; Mandal, P.K. Comparative Analysis of GS2 and Fd-GOGAT Genes in Cultivated Wheat and Their Progenitors Under N Stress. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2021, 39, 520–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ru, C.; Hu, X.T.; Wang, W.E.; Yan, H. Impact of nitrogen on photosynthesis, remobilization, yield, and efficiency in winter wheat under heat and drought stress. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 302, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jozefowicz, A.M.; Bienert, M.D.; Garibay, A.; Giehl, R.; Matros, A.; Schum, A.; Bienert, G.P.; Mock, H.-P. Plasma membrane intrinsic proteins PIP1; 1 and PIP1; 3 contribute to the tolerance to nitrogen deficiency in potato. Authorea Prepr. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schley, T.R.; Zhu, T.; Geist, B.; Crabos, A.; Dietrich, D.; Alandes, R.A.; Bennett, M.; Nacry, P.; Schäffner, A.R. The Arabidopsis PIP1;1 Aquaporin Represses Lateral Root Development and Nitrate Uptake Under Low Nitrate Availability. Plant Cell Environ. 2025, 48, 1500–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, R.Q.; Zhang, Z.M.; Wang, H.Y.; Chen, Y.L.; Zhang, M.X. Soil Water Deficit Reduced Root Hydraulic Conductivity of Common Reed (Phragmites australis). Plants 2023, 12, 3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mu, Z.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, L.; Liang, A.; Liang, Z. Hydraulic conductivity of whole root system is better than hydraulic conductivity of single root in correlation with the leaf water status of maize. Bot. Stud. 2006, 47, 145–151. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zahedi, S.M.; Karimi, M.; Venditti, A.; Zahra, N.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Farooq, M. Plant Adaptation to Drought Stress: The Role of Anatomical and Morphological Characteristics in Maintaining the Water Status. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2025, 25, 409–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ma, Q.; Zhao, C.; Hu, S.; Zuo, K. Arabidopsis calcium-dependent protein kinase CPK6 regulates drought tolerance under high nitrogen by the phosphorylation of NRT1.1. J. Exp. Bot. 2023, 74, 5682–5693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ho, C.-H.; Lin, S.-H.; Hu, H.-C.; Tsay, Y.-F. CHL1 functions as a nitrate sensor in plants. Cell 2009, 138, 1184–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, K.-H.; Niu, Y.; Konishi, M.; Wu, Y.; Du, H.; Chung, H.S.; Li, L.; Boudsocq, M.; McCormack, M.; Maekawa, S.; et al. Discovery of nitrate-CPK-NLP signalling in central nutrient-growth networks. Nature 2017, 545, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Han, M.-L.; Lv, Q.-Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Zhang, C.-X.; Tan, R.-J.; Wang, Y.-L.; Zhong, L.-Y.; Gao, Y.-Q.; Chao, Z.-F.; et al. Decreasing nitrogen assimilation under drought stress by suppressing DST-mediated activation of Nitrate Reductase 1.2 in rice. Mol. Plant 2022, 15, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fortunato, S.; Nigro, D.; Lasorella, C.; Marcotuli, I.; Gadaleta, A.; de Pinto, M.C. The Role of Glutamine Synthetase (GS) and Glutamate Synthase (GOGAT) in the Improvement of Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Cereals. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Nunes-Nesi, A.; Fernie, A.R.; Stitt, M. Metabolic and signaling aspects underpinning the regulation of plant carbon nitrogen interactions. Mol. Plant 2010, 3, 973–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sulpice, R.; Pyl, E.-T.; Ishihara, H.; Trenkamp, S.; Steinfath, M.; Witucka-Wall, H.; Gibon, Y.; Usadel, B.; Poree, F.; Piques, M.C.; et al. Starch as a major integrator in the regulation of plant growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 10348–10353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Dikilitas, M.; Simsek, E.; Roychoudhury, A. Role of proline and glycine betaine in overcoming abiotic stresses. Biochem. Mol. Perspect. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Miller, G.; Suzuki, N.; Ciftci-Yilmaz, S.; Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Noctor, G.; Mhamdi, A.; Foyer, C.H. Oxidative stress and antioxidative systems: Recipes for successful data collection and interpretation. Plant Cell Environ. 2016, 39, 1140–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sachdev, S.; Ansari, S.A.; Ansari, M.I. Reactive Oxygen Species in Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; Available online: https://link.springer.com/series/7651 (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  52. Farhan, M.; Sathish, M.; Kiran, R.; Mushtaq, A.; Baazeem, A.; Hasnain, A.; Hakim, F.; Naqvi, S.A.H.; Mubeen, M.; Iftikhar, Y.; et al. Plant Nitrogen Metabolism: Balancing Resilience to Nutritional Stress and Abiotic Challenges. Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2024, 93, 581–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Haghpanah, M.; Hashemipetroudi, S.; Arzani, A.; Araniti, F. Drought Tolerance in Plants: Physiological and Molecular Responses. Plants 2024, 13, 2962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ahmad, R.; Waraich, E.A.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Ahmad, S.; Aziz, T. Does nitrogen fertilization enhance drought tolerance in sunflower? A review. J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 942–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Iqbal, A.; Dong, Q.; Wang, X.; Gui, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Song, M. High Nitrogen Enhance Drought Tolerance in Cotton through Antioxidant Enzymatic Activities, Nitrogen Metabolism and Osmotic Adjustment. Plants 2020, 9, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ahmadi, A.; Emam, Y.; Pessarakli, M. Biochemical changes in maize seedlings exposed to drought stress conditions at different nitrogen levels. J. Plant Nutr. 2010, 33, 541–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Agami, R.A.; Alamri, S.A.M.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Abousekken, M.S.M.; Hashem, M. Role of exogenous nitrogen supply in alleviating the deficit irrigation stress in wheat plants. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 210, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Römheld, V.; Kirkby, E.A. Research on potassium in agriculture: Needs and prospects. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, L.X.; Li, S.X. Effects of application of N and K fertilizers on nitrogen metabolism of two genetype varieties of maize under water-stressed condition. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2007, 13, 554–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Jing, C.; Bolong, M.; Weiyi, M.; Qingzi, L.; Zhuoliang, H.; Jiaxuan, G.; Yixuan, C. The effect mechanism of drought and frost damage on plant water transport xylem embolism and cavitation fatigue. Tree Health 2024, 1, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zimmermann, M.H. Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Available online: https://link.springer.com/series/760 (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  63. Maqbool, S.; Hassan, M.A.; Xia, X.; York, L.M.; Rasheed, A.; He, Z. Root system architecture in cereals: Progress, challenges and perspective. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2022, 110, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lombardi, M.; De Gara, L.; Loreto, F. Determinants of root system architecture for future-ready, stress-resilient crops. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 172, 2090–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sun, X.; Wang, P.; Mi, G. Genotypic Differences in Maize Root Morphology in Response to Low-Nitrogen Stress. Agronomy 2025, 15, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Postma, J.A.; Dathe, A.; Lynch, J.P. The optimal lateral root branching density for maize depends on nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lynch, J.P. Harnessing root architecture to address global challenges. Plant J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2022, 109, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, J.; Chen, A.; Wang, L.; Guo, X.; Niu, Y.; Liu, S.; Mi, G.; Gao, Q. Reducing basal nitrogen rate to improve maize seedling growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies under drought stress by optimizing root morphology and distribution. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 212, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Giehl, R.F.H.; Gruber, B.D.; von Wirén, N. Its time to make changes: Modulation of root system architecture by nutrient signals. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Baena-González, E.; Rolland, F.; Thevelein, J.M.; Sheen, J. A central integrator of transcription networks in plant stress and energy signalling. Nature 2007, 448, 938–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Eghball, B.; Maranville, J.W. Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotypes grown under combined drought and nitrogen stresses. Agron. J. 1993, 85, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Thorup-Kristensen, K.; Cortasa, M.S.; Loges, R. Winter wheat roots grow twice as deep as spring wheat roots, is this important for N uptake and N leaching losses? Plant Soil 2009, 322, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Adu, M.O. Variations in Root System Architecture and Root Growth Dynamics of Brassica Rapa Genotypes Using a New Scanner-Based Phenotyping System. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2014. Available online: https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/14259 (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  74. Jia, Z. Exploiting Natural Variation to Uncover Genes Modulating Root Foraging Responses to Low Nitrogen in Arabidopsis Thaliana. Ph.D. Thesis, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ullah, A.; Tian, Z.W.; Xu, L.B.; Abid, M.; Lei, K.Q.; Khanzada, A.; Zeeshan, M.; Sun, C.J.; Yu, J.H.; Dai, T.B. Improving the effects of drought priming against post-anthesis drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using nitrogen. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 965996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sun, X.; Zhao, Q.; Gao, J.; Liu, Z. The Physiological Mechanisms and Hurdles of Efficient Water-Nitrogen Utilization in Maize Production: A Review. Plants 2025, 14, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shi, H.; Ma, W.; Song, J.; Lu, M.; Rahman, S.U.; Bui, T.T.X.; Vu, D.D.; Zheng, H.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. Physiological and transcriptional responses of Catalpa bungei to drought stress under sufficient- and deficient-nitrogen conditions. Tree Physiol. 2017, 37, 1457–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pierret, A.; Maeght, J.L.; Clément, C.; Montoroi, J.P.; Hartmann, C.; Gonkhamdee, S. Understanding deep roots and their functions in ecosystems: An advocacy for more unconventional research. Ann. Bot. 2016, 118, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hofer, D.; Suter, M.; Buchmann, N.; Lüscher, A. Nitrogen status of functionally different forage species explains resistance to severe drought and post-drought overcompensation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 236, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Thilakarathna, M.S.; McElroy, M.S.; Chapagain, T.; Papadopoulos, Y.A.; Raizada, M.N. Belowground nitrogen transfer from legumes to non-legumes under managed herbaceous cropping systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Concha, C.; Doerner, P. The impact of the rhizobia-legume symbiosis on host root system architecture. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 3902–3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Gao, Y.; Lang, G.; Zhang, J.; Liu, G.; Li, J. Deficit irrigation during the vegetative stage improves tomato growth and yield by optimizing root architecture and delaying root senescence. Sci. Hortic. 2025, 349, 114218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wakrim, R.; Wahbi, S.; Tahi, H.; Aganchich, B.; Serraj, R. Comparative effects of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) on water relations and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 106, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Krouk, G.; Lacombe, B.; Bielach, A.; Perrine-Walker, F.; Malinska, K.; Mounier, E.; Hoyerova, K.; Tillard, P.; Leon, S.; Ljung, K.; et al. Nitrate-Regulated Auxin Transport by NRT1.1 Defines a Mechanism for Nutrient Sensing in Plants. Dev. Cell 2010, 18, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bouguyon, E.; Perrine-Walker, F.; Pervent, M.; Rochette, J.; Cuesta, C.; Benkova, E.; Martinière, A.; Bach, L.; Krouk, G.; Gojon, A.; et al. Nitrate Controls Root Development through Posttranscriptional Regulation of the NRT1.1/NPF6.3 Transporter/Sensor. Plant Physiol. 2016, 172, 1237–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bienert, M.D.; Diehn, T.A.; Richet, N.; Chaumont, F.; Bienert, G.P. Heterotetramerization of Plant PIP1 and PIP2 Aquaporins Is an Evolutionary Ancient Feature to Guide PIP1 Plasma Membrane Localization and Function. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kotur, Z.; Mackenzie, N.; Ramesh, S.; Tyerman, S.D.; Kaiser, B.N.; Glass, A.D.M. Nitrate transport capacity of the Arabidopsis thaliana NRT2 family members and their interactions with AtNAR2.1. New Phytol. 2012, 194, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Frungillo, L.; Skelly, M.J.; Loake, G.J.; Spoel, S.H.; Salgado, I. S-nitrosothiols regulate nitric oxide production and storage in plants through the nitrogen assimilation pathway. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cossani, C.M.; Sadras, V.O. Water–nitrogen colimitation in grain crops. Adv. Agron. 2018, 150, 231–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Quemada, M.; Gabriel, J.L. Approaches for increasing nitrogen and water use efficiency simultaneously. Glob. Food Secur. Agric. Policy 2016, 9, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arrese-Igor, C.; González, E.M.; Marino, D.; Ladrera, R.; Larrainzar, E.; Gil-Quintana, E.J. Physiological responses of legume nodules to drought. Plant Stress 2011, 5, 24–31. Available online: https://academica-e.unavarra.es/handle/2454/23973 (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  92. Qiao, M.; Hong, C.; Jiao, Y.; Hou, S.; Gao, H. Impacts of Drought on Photosynthesis in Major Food Crops and the Related Mechanisms of Plant Responses to Drought. Plants 2024, 13, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Verma, D.K.; Kaur, B.; Pandey, A.K.; Asthir, B. Nitrogenase: A Key Enzyme in Microbial Nitrogen Fixation for Soil Health. In Microbiology for Sustainable Agriculture, Soil Health, and Environmental Protection; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 61–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Khatun, M.; Sarkar, S.; Era, F.M.; Islam, A.K.M.M.; Anwar, P.; Fahad, S.; Datta, R.; Islam, A.K.M.A. Drought stress in grain legumes: Effects, tolerance mechanisms and management. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Marino, D.; Frendo, P.; Ladrera, R.; Zabalza, A.; Puppo, A.; Arrese-Igor, C.; González, E.M. Nitrogen fixation control under drought stress. Localized or systemic? Plant Physiol. 2007, 143, 1968–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. de Freitas, V.F.; Cerezini, P.; Hungria, M.; Nogueira, M.A. Strategies to deal with drought-stress in biological nitrogen fixation in soybean. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 172, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cassán, F.; Diaz-Zorita, M. Azospirillum sp. in current agriculture: From the laboratory to the field. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Figueiredo, M.V.B.; Burity, H.A.; Martínez, C.R.; Chanway, C.P. Alleviation of drought stress in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by co-inoculation with Paenibacillus polymyxa and Rhizobium tropici. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 40, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. de Almeida Leite, R.; Martins, L.C.; Ferreira, L.V.d.S.F.; Barbosa, E.S.; Alves, B.J.R.; Zilli, J.E.; Araújo, A.P.; Jesus, E.D.C. Co-inoculation of Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium promotes growth and yield of common beans. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 172, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cely, M.V.T.; Siviero, M.A.; Emiliano, J.; Spago, F.R.; Freitas, V.F.; Barazetti, A.R.; Goya, E.T.; Lamberti, G.d.S.; dos Santos, I.M.O.; De Oliveira, A.G.; et al. Inoculation of Schizolobium parahyba with mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria increases wood yield under field conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Khan, M.N.; Ijaz, M.; Ali, Q.; Ul-Allah, S.; Sattar, A.; Ahmad, S. Biological nitrogen fixation in nutrient management. In Agronomic Crops: Volume 2: Management Practices; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 127–147. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-32-9783-8_8#citeas (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  102. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bot, A.; Benites, J. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter: Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sustained Food Production; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome, Italy, 2005; p. 80. Available online: https://www.oregondigital.org/concern/documents/df70rp71x (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  104. Hungria, M.; Nogueira, M.A.; Araujo, R.S. Co-inoculation of soybeans and common beans with rhizobia and azospirilla: Strategies to improve sustainability. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Purcell, L.C.; Serraj, R.; Sinclair, T.R.; De, A. Soybean N2 fixation estimates, ureide concentration, and yield responses to drought. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Salvagiotti, F.; Cassman, K.G.; Specht, J.E.; Walters, D.T.; Weiss, A.; Dobermann, A. Nitrogen uptake, fixation and response to fertilizer N in soybeans: A review. Field Crops Res. 2008, 108, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sinclair, T.R.; Marrou, H.; Soltani, A.; Vadez, V.; Chandolu, K.C. Soybean production potential in Africa. Glob. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Graham, P.H.; Vance, C.P. Legumes: Importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gao, H.; Yang, D.; Yang, L.; Han, S.; Liu, G.; Tang, L.; Chen, J.; Wang, D.; Guo, C. Co-inoculation with Sinorhizobium meliloti and Enterobacter ludwigii improves the yield, nodulation, and quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) under saline-alkali environments. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 199, 116818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, X.; Wang, M.; Yue, A.; Guo, S.; Wang, P.; Wang, L.; Yang, T.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, C.; et al. Effects of nitrogen nutrition and rhizobium inoculation on nodulation and nitrogen fixation and growth of soybean. Acta Agric. Boreali-Sin. 2022, 37, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zandalinas, S.I.; Balfagón, D.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Mittler, R. Plant responses to climate change: Metabolic changes under combined abiotic stresses. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 3339–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chaudhry, S.; Sidhu, G.P.S. Climate change regulated abiotic stress mechanisms in plants: A comprehensive review. Plant Cell Rep. 2022, 41, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Tester, M.; Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 2010, 327, 818–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ainsworth, E.A.; Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: Mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007, 30, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Myers, S.S.; Zanobetti, A.; Kloog, I.; Huybers, P.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Bloom, A.J.; Carlisle, E.; Dietterich, L.H.; Fitzgerald, G.; Hasegawa, T.; et al. Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature 2014, 510, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bloom, A.J.; Burger, M.; Kimball, B.A.; Pinter, P.J. Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 477–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yu, Y.; Cheng, H.; Wu, B.; Wang, C. Technology. Combined effects of drought stress and different forms of nitrogen deposition as response mechanism to environmental change. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 6697–6712. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-022-04408-0#citeas (accessed on 14 September 2025). [CrossRef]
  118. Barmeier, G.; Hu, Y.; Schmidhalter, U. Partitioning and Translocation of Dry Matter and Nitrogen During Grain Filling in Spring Barley Varieties and Their Roles in Determining Malting Quality. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 722871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Gaju, O.; Allard, V.; Martre, P.; Le Gouis, J.; Moreau, D.; Bogard, M.; Hubbart, S.; Foulkes, M.J. Nitrogen partitioning and remobilization in relation to leaf senescence, grain yield and grain nitrogen concentration in wheat cultivars. Field Crops Res. 2014, 155, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hatfield, J.L.; Dold, C. Water-Use Efficiency: Advances and Challenges in a Changing Climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Fan, B.L.; Chen, L.H.; Chen, L.L.; Guo, H. Integrative Multi-Omics Approaches for Identifying and Characterizing Biological Elements in Crop Traits: Current Progress and Future Prospects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Saleem, M.H.; Noreen, S.; Ishaq, I.; Saleem, A.; Khan, K.A.; Ercisli, S.; Anas, M.; Khalid, A.; Ahmed, T.; Hassan, A.; et al. Omics technologies: Unraveling abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms for sustainable crop improvement. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2025, 44, 4165–4187. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00344-025-11674-y#citeas (accessed on 14 September 2025). [CrossRef]
  123. Noctor, G.; Reichheld, J.P.; Foyer, C.H. ROS-related redox regulation and signaling in plants. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018, 80, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M.J.H. Reactive oxygen species generation, hazards, and defense mechanisms in plants under environmental (abiotic and biotic) stress conditions. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology; Hindawi Publishing Corporation: Cairo, Egypt, 2021; pp. 617–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sharma, A.; Soares, C.; Sousa, B.; Martins, M.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Sidhu, G.P.; Bali, A.S.; Asgher, M.; Bhardwaj, R.; et al. Nitric oxide-mediated regulation of oxidative stress in plants under metal stress: A review on molecular and biochemical aspects. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 168, 318–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Bailey-Serres, J.; Parker, J.E.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Oldroyd, G.E.; Schroeder, J.I. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 2019, 575, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Hachez, C.; Veselov, D.; Ye, Q.; Reinhardt, H.; Knipfer, T.; Fricke, W.; Chaumont, F. Short-term control of maize cell and root water permeability through plasma membrane aquaporin isoforms. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yang, S.; Vanderbeld, B.; Wan, J.; Huang, Y. Narrowing down the targets: Towards successful genetic engineering of drought-tolerant crops. Mol. Plant 2010, 3, 469–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhang, Y.; Li, B.Z.; Luo, P.; Xian, Y.N.; Xiao, R.L.; Wu, J.S. Glutamine synthetase plays an important role in ammonium tolerance of Myriophyllum aquaticum. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 848, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Santos, T.d.O.; Junior, A.T.D.A.; Moulin, M.M. Maize breeding for low nitrogen inputs in agriculture: Mechanisms underlying the tolerance to the abiotic stress. Stresses 2023, 3, 136–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Habash, D.; Massiah, A.; Rong, H.; Wallsgrove, R.; Leigh, R.J. The role of cytosolic glutamine synthetase in wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2001, 138, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Obara, M.; Kajiura, M.; Fukuta, Y.; Yano, M.; Hayashi, M.; Yamaya, T.; Sato, T. Mapping of QTLs associated with cytosolic glutamine synthetase and NADH-glutamate synthase in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2001, 52, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  133. Uga, Y.; Sugimoto, K.; Ogawa, S.; Rane, J.; Ishitani, M.; Hara, N.; Kitomi, Y.; Inukai, Y.; Ono, K.; Kanno, N.; et al. Control of root system architecture by DEEPER ROOTING 1 increases rice yield under drought conditions. Nat. Genet. 2013, 45, 1097–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Lang, Z.; Botella, J.R.; Zhu, J.-K. Genome editing—Principles and applications for functional genomics research and crop improvement. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2017, 36, 291–309. Available online: https://www.x-mol.com/paperRedirect/548454 (accessed on 14 September 2025). [CrossRef]
  135. Hickey, L.T.; Hafeez, A.N.; Robinson, H.; Jackson, S.A.; Leal-Bertioli, S.C.M.; Tester, M.; Gao, C.; Godwin, I.D.; Hayes, B.J.; Wulff, B.B.H. Breeding crops to feed 10 billion. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 744–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Wallace, J.G.; Rodgers-Melnick, E.; Buckler, E.S. On the Road to Breeding 4.0: Unraveling the Good, the Bad, and the Boring of Crop Quantitative Genomics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2018, 52, 421–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Marzaki, I.; Supriyadi, A.A.; Arief, S. Leveraging drone technology for advancements in photogrammetry, remote sensing, and military intelligence: A review. Remote Sens. Technol. Def. Environ. 2024, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. La, W.J.; Sudduth, K.A.; Kim, H.J.; Chung, S.O. Fusion of spectral and electrochemical sensor data for estimating soil macronutrients. Trans. ASABE 2016, 59, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Cohen, A.R.; Chen, G.; Berger, E.M.; Warrier, S.; Lan, G.; Grubert, E.; Dellaert, F.; Chen, Y. Engineering, T. Dynamically controlled environment agriculture: Integrating machine learning and mechanistic and physiological models for sustainable food cultivation. ACS EST Eng. 2021, 2, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Skobelev, P.; Mayorov, I.; Simonova, E.; Goryanin, O.; Zhilyaev, A.; Tabachinskiy, A.; Yalovenko, V. Development of models and methods for creating a digital twin of plant within the cyber-physical system for precision farming management. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1703, 012022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Dubey, A. Climate changes in soil microorganism–plant interactions. In Climate Change and the Microbiome: Sustenance of the Ecosphere; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 187–198. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-76863-8_9#citeas (accessed on 14 September 2025).
  142. de Sousa, R.N.; Grichar, W.J. Strategic Tillage and Soil Management: New Perspectives; BoD–Books on Demand; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Li, D.; Liu, Q.; Schnable, P.S. TWAS results are complementary to and less affected by linkage disequilibrium than GWAS. Plant Physiol. 2021, 186, 1800–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Li, D.; Wang, Q.; Tian, Y.; Lyv, X.; Zhang, H.; Hong, H.; Gao, H.; Li, Y.-F.; Zhao, C.; Wang, J.; et al. TWAS facilitates gene-scale trait genetic dissection through gene expression, structural variations, and alternative splicing in soybean. Plant Commun. 2024, 5, 101010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Xu, Y.; Li, P.; Zou, C.; Lu, Y.; Xie, C.; Zhang, X.; Prasanna, B.M.; Olsen, M.S. Enhancing genetic gain in the era of molecular breeding. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 2641–2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the multi-level regulatory mechanisms by which rational N management enhances plant drought resistance.
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the multi-level regulatory mechanisms by which rational N management enhances plant drought resistance.
Plants 14 02928 g001
Table 2. Responses of plant antioxidant and osmotic regulation systems under N regulation.
Table 2. Responses of plant antioxidant and osmotic regulation systems under N regulation.
Regulation TypeKey Substance/EnzymeEffects of Moderate N TreatmentPotential Risks of Excessive NReference
Antioxidant enzyme systemSODActivity significantly enhanced in sunflower under 80–120 kg N ha−1; O2 scavenging efficiency improvedInduced secondary oxidative burst; exacerbated membrane damage[54]
CATActivity enhanced in cotton under 5 mM N; H2O2 content reduced to 55% of low-N drought groupsCarbon-N metabolic imbalance; increased respiratory load[55]
APXSynergized with GR to maintain ascorbate–glutathione cycle stabilityAccumulation of photorespiratory H2O2
Osmotic AdjustmentProlineSynthesis increased by 24% in maize under 180 kg N ha−1; activated via P5CS pathwayMetabolic disorder due to overaccumulation[56]
Soluble sugars (sucrose, fructans)Content increased by 30% in wheat under 0.6 g N kg−1 soil; enhanced cellular osmolarity and membrane stabilityUncoupling from N assimilation; toxic soluble sugar accumulation[57]
Structural reinforcementXylem vessels and sclerenchymaXylem vessel diameter increased by 18% and sclerenchyma thickness by 25% in wheat; reduced drought-induced cavitationPromoted succulent growth; increased water demand[57]
Table 3. Root architectural responses to N levels in plants.
Table 3. Root architectural responses to N levels in plants.
N LevelRoot Structural ResponsesImplications for Drought AdaptationRepresentative CropReference
Moderate NIncreased deep root proportion (30–50% higher root length density in >40 cm soil layers); proliferation of fine roots (<0.5 mm diameter)Enhanced deep soil water uptake; improved hydraulic conductance; increased drought survival rateMaize (Zea mays)[68]
Radial expansion of xylem vessels; synergized with fine root proliferation to optimize water transport efficiencyImproved root-to-canopy water transport; maintained transpiration-photosynthesis balanceCatalpa bungei[28]
N deficiencyIncreased shallow fine root density; prioritized carbon allocation to roots for expanded absorption areaEnhanced surface soil resource capture, but insufficient deep water acquisitionMaize (Zea mays)[66]
High N supplyShallow root distribution; reduced R/S; decreased total root biomassRapid depletion of surface soil moisture; increased hydraulic vulnerability under droughtWinter wheat (Triticum aestivum)[30]
N form differencePreferential NH4+ uptake in Malus prunifolia under drought; upregulated AMT1;2/4;2 transporter expressionConserved energy consumption; maintained nodule vitality under N-limited drought stressApple rootstock (Malus prunifolia)[31]
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

Sun, X.; Miao, Q.; Gu, Y.; Yang, L.; Wang, P. Research on the Physiological Mechanisms of Nitrogen in Alleviating Plant Drought Tolerance. Plants 2025, 14, 2928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14182928

AMA Style

Sun X, Miao Q, Gu Y, Yang L, Wang P. Research on the Physiological Mechanisms of Nitrogen in Alleviating Plant Drought Tolerance. Plants. 2025; 14(18):2928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14182928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Xichao, Qi Miao, Yingchen Gu, Lan Yang, and Peng Wang. 2025. "Research on the Physiological Mechanisms of Nitrogen in Alleviating Plant Drought Tolerance" Plants 14, no. 18: 2928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14182928

APA Style

Sun, X., Miao, Q., Gu, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, P. (2025). Research on the Physiological Mechanisms of Nitrogen in Alleviating Plant Drought Tolerance. Plants, 14(18), 2928. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14182928

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