Next Article in Journal
Identification, Classification of the MIKC-Type MADS-Box Gene Family, and Expression Analysis of Female and Male Flower Buds in Walnut (Juglans regia, Juglandaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
High-Precision Complex Orchard Passion Fruit Detection Using the PHD-YOLO Model Improved from YOLOv11n
Previous Article in Special Issue
Crop Load Affects Yield, Fruit Size, and Return Bloom of the New Apple Cultivar Fryd© (‘Wuranda’)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Salinity Stress and Calcium in Pomegranate: Impacts on Growth, Ion Homeostasis, and Photosynthesis

by
Christos Chatzissavvidis
1,*,
Nina Devetzi
1,
Chrysovalantou Antonopoulou
1,
Ioannis E. Papadakis
2,
Ioannis Therios
3 and
Stefanos Koundouras
3
1
Laboratory of Pomology, Vegetable Crops and Floriculture, Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
2
Laboratory of Pomology, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece
3
School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(7), 786; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070786
Submission received: 27 May 2025 / Revised: 27 June 2025 / Accepted: 30 June 2025 / Published: 3 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Orchard Management: Strategies for Yield and Quality)

Abstract

Salinity has significant impacts on crops, a problem that is exacerbated under climate change conditions. For this reason, research is focused on possible ways to mitigate the impacts by adapting cultivation methods such as administering appropriate materials or formulations to plants. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of calcium (Ca2+) supplementation on the growth, physiology, and chemical composition of pomegranate plants (Punica granatum L. cv. ‘Wonderful’) grown under salinity stress. Young self-rooted plants were cultivated in pots containing a sand/perlite (1:1) mixture and irrigated with Hoagland’s nutrient solution amended with NaCl (0, 60, or 120 mM) and CaCl2·2H2O (0 or 10 mM). Salinity significantly reduced the fresh and dry weight of aboveground tissues; photosynthetic performance; chlorophyll content; and potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) concentrations, particularly under high NaCl levels. Sodium (Na) accumulation increased in all plant parts, while nitrogen (N), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) concentrations were elevated in basal leaves. Calcium supplementation mitigated several of these adverse effects, especially under moderate salinity. It helped maintain leaf biomass, supported K+ retention in roots, partially improved chlorophyll concentration, and limited Na+ accumulation in certain tissues. However, Ca2+ application did not consistently reverse the negative impacts of severe salinity (120 mM NaCl), and in some cases, interactions between Ca2+ and other nutrients such as Mg2+ were antagonistic. These findings confirm the inherent salt tolerance of pomegranate and demonstrate that calcium plays a partially protective role under salinity, particularly at moderate stress levels. Further research is needed to optimize Ca2+ use in saline agriculture and enhance sustainable cultivation of pomegranate in salt-affected soils.

1. Introduction

A major problem in many regions is the accumulation of salts in cultivated soils [1]. Saline soils contain water-soluble salts that hinder plant growth, primarily chlorides and sulfates of Na, Ca, and Mg [2]. Among these, Na-based salts are the most detrimental, as Na negatively affects soil structure, reducing aeration and limiting plant development [3].
Salinity is an escalating threat to agriculture [4], being one of the most critical environmental factors that limit crop growth and productivity [5]. Approximately 6% of the earth’s total surface is covered by saline soil, and this percentage is becoming increasingly larger as arable land expands worldwide [6].
Salinity impairs plant growth through several physiological mechanisms. These include: (a) osmotic stress—salinity lowers soil water potential, reducing water availability to roots and leading to water deficit if water absorption and/or transpiration are not sufficiently regulated; (b) ion toxicity—Na+ and Cl accumulate under saline conditions, causing toxicity symptoms in salt-sensitive plants; and (c) ion imbalance—high salt concentrations interfere with the uptake, transport and assimilation of essential nutrients such as K+ and Ca2+, leading to nutritional deficiencies and impaired physiological functions [7].
The adverse effects of salinity manifest throughout the plant, either as visible damage or reduced productivity. Some plants have evolved mechanisms to exclude or tolerate salt at the cellular level [8]. Generally, salinity delays germination, stunts growth, and leads to smaller plants [9]. Common symptoms include chlorosis, leaf desiccation, defoliation, and necrosis of young shoots [7]. Salinity also reduces photosynthetic efficiency and protein synthesis, while disturbing energy and lipid metabolism [8]. These effects are often linked to impaired stomatal conductance [10]. Furthermore, salinity shifts biomass allocation towards roots, increasing the root-to-shoot ratio [11]. As plants mature, their tolerance may increase due to enhanced osmotic adjustment capabilities [12,13,14]. The severity of salinity effects depends on factors such as species, genotype, and plant age. The harmful effects of salinity on pomegranate trees have also been well documented. Plants exposed to increasing salinity show reduced height, fewer leaves, and smaller stem diameters [15,16,17]. Döring and Lüdders observed that as NaCl concentration in nutrient solutions increased, plant growth declined, with Na and Cl accumulating predominantly in roots and leaves, respectively. Salinity also affected carbohydrate concentrations in the roots and leaves of pomegranate plants [18,19].
To mitigate salinity stress, calcium (Ca) plays a vital role in plant physiology. Ca is abundant in most soils, and deficiencies are rare under natural conditions. In mature leaves, Ca can constitute over 10% of dry weight [7]. It is essential for maintaining membrane integrity, forming cell walls, synthesizing proteins, and supporting cell division and meristem activity. Additionally, Ca2+ regulates pH and ion exchange, and it is crucial for pollen germination and pollen tube growth, as well as fruit respiration [7,20,21]. Moreover, Ca2+ functions as a secondary messenger, transmitting signals triggered by environmental stimuli, pathogens, and mechanical injuries through transient increases in cytoplasmic Ca2+ levels [7]. Under saline conditions, the importance of calcium is further amplified. Ca levels often rise with increasing soil salinity [22], and its application can alleviate salinity stress [23,24]. This effect is attributed to Ca2+’s regulatory role in metabolism [25] and its ability to compete with Na for membrane binding sites, thereby stabilizing membranes and maintaining K+ and Na+ balance [26]. Salinity also disrupts nutrient uptake in glycophytes by directly affecting transport mechanisms or through ion toxicity in the growth medium [27]. Competition among ions and changes in membrane selectivity impair nutrient absorption. Therefore, understanding the interplay between salinity and calcium in plant nutrition is essential for successfully cultivating pomegranate under saline conditions.
Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) adapts very well to the Mediterranean climate and to the climate of semi-arid regions, a pattern observed since ancient times. The total area of pomegranate production worldwide exceeds 300,000 ha, with more than 76% found in five countries (India, Iran, China, Turkey, and the USA) [28]. In recent decades, there has been a great tendency for this crop to acquire an important position in many Mediterranean countries, including Greece [29]. Pomegranate plants generally have no special soil requirements. They can thrive even in saline soils or when irrigated with brackish water. However, to achieve optimal yield and fruit quality, they require deep, well-drained, medium-textured soils, such as clay, sandy loam, and light clay loam, with a pH of 5.5–7.0 and adequate organic matter content [30]. Despite this adaptability, pomegranate cultivation remains vulnerable to salinity, which poses a growing challenge to agriculture worldwide, particularly in regions where soil salinization is prevalent.
In this context, the present study aimed to evaluate the potential of exogenous calcium (Ca) application to mitigate salinity-induced stress in pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. ‘Wonderful’) by assessing its effects on plant growth, ion homeostasis, and photosynthetic performance. The findings are intended to contribute to a better understanding of the physiological and nutritional mechanisms involved and to support the development of improved cultivation strategies for pomegranate under saline conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Six-month-old pomegranate (cv. Wonderful) plants, propagated by cuttings, uniform in height and girth, were transplanted to 3 L plastic pots containing a 1:1 sand/perlite mixture. The experimental plants were maintained outdoors in the Experimental Farm of the Department of Agricultural Development (Orestiada City, Greece), under a 3 m high lath house covered with plastic on the top to avoid rain (providing shading 20%). The experiment was initiated on April 29th, and the mean maximum and minimum temperatures for the months of May, June, and July were 28, 31.9, and 34 °C and 12.4, 15.5, and 19 °C, respectively. The maximum and minimum temperatures for these months were 33, 37, and 40 °C and 8, 9, and 16 °C, respectively. Plants were initially irrigated with good quality tap water (0.62 dS m−1) for 21 days. Afterwards, the plants were irrigated every two or three days with 250 mL of modified half-strength Hoagland nutrient solution, containing NaCl alone or in combination with CaCl2·2H2O. The nutrient solution contained (in ppm): N 112, K+ 117.5, Ca2+ 80, P 31, S 16, Mg2+ 12, Fe2+/Fe3+ 1.0, Cl- 0.885, B 0.135, Mn2+ 0.055, Zn2+ 0.065, Cu2+ 0.015, and Mo 0.025. In detail, the six treatments—each including six replicates (two plants per replicate)—were as follows (Table 1):
This experimental design was chosen because NaCl is the predominant salt in reclaimed water, and CaCl2 mitigates potential calcium deficiencies [31]. Regarding the electrical conductivity (EC) of the solutions, values were 1.39, 2.85, 6.16, 11.33, 8.80, and 13.99 dS m−1, respectively, while the corresponding pH values were 5.53, 4.32, 6.63, 7.54, 6.33, and 6.27. Every 10 days, 500 mL of water was supplied to each plant to leach out any accumulated salts. After 60 days from the beginning of the experimental treatments, the experiment was terminated once typical visual symptoms of salt toxicity (e.g., leaf necrosis, chlorosis, and stunted growth) became evident (Figure 1). At this time-point, comprehensive physiological assessments were performed as described in subsequent subsections.

2.1. Plant Growth Measurements

Baseline measurements (recorded prior to treatment initiation) included plant height, trunk girth (measured 3–4 cm above soil), and counts of leaves and nodes. At harvest, these parameters were reassessed, along with lateral stem number and length. One leaf from the top four nodes of each plant was photographed for digital morphometric analysis (Image Pro Plus 4.5, Media Cybernetics, Rockville, MD, USA) to determine area, length, width, and perimeter. Additional leaf samples were collected for subsequent analyses of pigment content and membrane leakage (see Section 2.2 and Section 2.3). Plants were then uprooted and separated into leaves (basal and upper halves), stems, and roots. After fresh weight (FW) determination, tissues were washed with deionized water, oven-dried at 75 °C for 48 h, and reweighed to determine dry weight (DW).

2.2. Chlorophyll Content and Photosynthesis Parameters

Chlorophyll extraction was performed on leaf discs (3 cm2) collected from mature top leaves at noon under full sunlight. Samples were immersed in 15 mL of 96% ethanol (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) at 78 °C until complete discoloration. Chlorophyll (a + b) concentration was determined spectrophotometrically at 649 nm and 665 nm using the Wintermans and de Mots [32] formula as follows:
Chlorophyll a + b (in mg/g f.w.) = 6.10 × (A665) + 20.04 × (A649) × 0.015/f.w.
Chlorophyll a + b (in mg/cm2) = 6.10 × (A665) + 20.04 × (A649) × 0.015/leaf area
(A665) and (A649) represent absorbance values read at 665 and 649 nm wavelengths, respectively.
Additionally, both old and new leaves were used for CCI (Chlorophyll Content Index) measurements with a portable CCM-200 device (Opti-sciences Inc., Hudson NH, USA, https://www.adc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CCM-200-plus-manual-1.pdf, (accessed on 25 June 2025).
Photosynthetic parameters, including net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (E), and stomatal conductance (gs), were measured in mature top leaves using a portable gas analyzer (ADC BioScientific LC pro, Hoddesdon, Herts EN11 ONT, UK). Water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as the Pn/gs ratio, expressed in μmol CO2 per mmol H2O.

2.3. Electrolyte Leakage of Cell Membranes

To determine cell membrane permeability, 0.02 g and 5 mm long samples of fresh top leaves cut into narrow strips, were used. These samples were placed into plastic tubes with a lid and filled with 10 mL deionized water. The tubes were stirred for 24 h, and then the electrical conductivity and K concentration of the solutions were determined (C1 and K1 values, respectively). Afterwards, the samples were transferred to glass tubes with 10 mL of deionized water and placed into an autoclave furnace at 120 °C under a pressure of 103.1 kPa for 20 min. Then, the samples were cooled to 25 °C, and a second measurement of EC and K concentration took place (C2 and K2, respectively). Thus, the membrane permeability was calculated by the mathematical formulas C1/C2, C1/C1+C2, K1/K2, and K1/K1+K2.

2.4. Inorganic Elements Analysis

For quantification of K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Zn, and Mn, 0.5 g of milled, dried plant material was dry-ashed at 550 °C for 6 h. The ash was dissolved in 3 mL of 6 N HCl (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and diluted to 50 mL with deionized water. Elemental concentrations were determined using atomic absorption spectroscopy (Perkin-Elmer 2380; Perkin-Elmer, Salem, MA, USA) using standard methods.
Total nitrogen (N) content was analyzed using the Kjeldahl method [33]. One gram of milled, dried sample was digested with 20 mL concentrated H2SO4 (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) in the presence of a catalyst at 390 °C for 130 min, followed by standard distillation and titration procedures.
Chloride content was determined by titrating aqueous extracts. Briefly, 0.2 g of milled tissue was extracted in 25 mL deionized water for 30 min. After filtration, 20 mL aliquots were titrated with 0.0141 N AgNO3 (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) solution using K2CrO4 (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) as an indicator [34].

2.5. Statistical Data Analysis

The factorial experiment evaluated two salt concentrations (60 and 120 mM NaCl) combined with calcium supplementation (0 or 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O), plus a control, totaling eight experimental treatments. Each treatment consisted of six biological replicates, with two plants per replicate (n = 12 plants per treatment). All data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05) for post hoc comparisons among the eight treatments. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth Parameters

The evaluation of plant growth responses under salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10, S60/Ca10, S120/Ca10) treatments provides important insights into the physiological adjustments of pomegranate plants. A range of morphological traits, including biomass accumulation and allocation, was assessed to determine the impact of individual and combined stress factors. The results are presented below, categorized by fresh and dry weight parameters, as well as plant height and leaf number per plant.
Salinity and calcium treatments markedly influenced the fresh weight accumulation in different plant organs of pomegranate (Table 2). Leaf, stem, and total plant fresh weights were significantly reduced in all treated groups compared to the control, which consistently exhibited the highest values across these parameters. Moderate salinity (S60) and calcium application alone (Ca10) led to intermediate reductions in leaf fresh weight, whereas their combinations—particularly under high salinity (S120/Ca10)—resulted in the most pronounced decreases. Furthermore, all treated plants exhibited similarly reduced stem fresh weights compared to the control group, indicating that calcium alone (Ca10) or in combination with NaCl-induced salinity treatments (S60/Ca10, S120/Ca10) was not able to mitigate the adverse impact of salinity on stem biomass. Moreover, the shoot-to-root ratio on a fresh weight basis remained statistically unchanged, highlighting that although overall shoot growth declined under stress, it was proportionally balanced with root biomass across treatments (Table 2).
On a dry weight basis (Table 3), treatment effects were similarly evident, particularly in aboveground biomass components. The control group showed the highest dry weights for leaves, stems, and total plant biomass. Notably, the S60/Ca10 treatment produced a leaf dry weight comparable to the control, without statistically significant differences, indicating that calcium may help maintain leaf biomass under moderate salinity rather than increasing it. On the other hand, high salinity (S120), either alone or in combination with calcium, consistently reduced leaf and stem dry weights, with the most severe reductions in leaves observed in the absence of calcium supplementation. Additionally, root dry weight followed the same pattern of reduction across all treatments relative to the control, though differences among the treated groups were not statistically significant. Furthermore, total plant dry weight mirrored the trends of its components, with S60/Ca10 maintaining a relatively higher biomass that did not significantly differ from the control, whereas all other treatments exhibited marked reductions. Importantly, the shoot-to-root dry weight ratio varied significantly, with S60/Ca10 displaying the highest value, indicating a preferential allocation of biomass to the aerial parts under these conditions. Conversely, the lowest ratio was observed in the high salinity treatment without calcium, reflecting a shift towards root investment or inhibited shoot growth under severe stress. These findings underscore the differential effects of salinity and calcium on biomass distribution, particularly under conditions of combined stress.
Plant height (Table 3) was not significantly affected by any of the salinity or calcium treatments. The measured values ranged between 39.38 and 50.42 cm across treatments, with the highest observed in the control group. However, no statistically significant differences were detected between control and all the other treatments. In contrast, the number of leaves per plant (Table 3) responded sensitively to salinity and calcium treatments. The control treatment produced the highest leaf number per plant, while the moderate salinity treatment (S60) showed a comparable value. Treatments involving calcium alone or in combination with salinity (Ca10, S60/Ca10, and S120) resulted in reduced leaf numbers, all statistically lower than the control. The greatest reduction was observed under the combined high salinity and calcium treatment (S120/Ca10), which led to the lowest total leaf number per plant, significantly different from most other treatments.

3.2. Permeability of Leaf Cell Membranes

The addition of salt and calcium (either separately or in combination) to the nutritional solution elevated the leaf membrane permeability at the end of the experiment (Table 4). Nevertheless, this rise was statistically significant only in the S120-treated plants.

3.3. Leaf Chlorophyll

The treatment with the highest salinity with calcium (S120/Ca10) showed a substantial decline in the concentration of total chlorophyll per fresh weight or area unit in leaves (Table 5). What is more, the addition of calcium resulted in a little drop in the content of chlorophyll in each salinity treatment.
Finally, most salt-treated plants showed a minor but not significant decrease in chlorophyll units (CCI) in their leaves when compared to the control. Although plants treated with moderate salinity (S60 and S60/Ca10) exhibited numerically lower values, these were not statistically different from the control. Interestingly, the S120/Ca10 treatment showed the highest CCI value, despite its significant reduction in total chlorophyll content (Table 5).

3.4. Photosynthesis

The addition of salts to the nutritional solution considerably altered photosynthesis parameters in leaves (photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and water usage efficiency) (Figure 2). Specifically, all of the above parameters were found to be significantly and negatively influenced in the highest salinity treatments (S120/Ca10 and S120). Furthermore, medium salinity treatments (S60 and S60/Ca10) were found to have a deleterious effect on photosynthetic rates.

3.5. Chemical Composition of Plants

Salinity and calcium treatments markedly influenced the distribution and concentration of mineral nutrients in various parts of pomegranate plants. These effects varied across different plant parts, with notable shifts in the levels of macronutrients (K, Ca, Mg, Na) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn) in leaves, stems, and roots (Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).
In basal leaves, salinity significantly increased sodium (Na) concentration, particularly under the S120/Ca10 treatment, which recorded the highest Na levels (Table 6). This was accompanied by a decline in K, Ca, and Mg concentrations under salinity, with the most pronounced reductions observed in the S120 and S120/Ca10 treatments. The presence of supplemental calcium, especially in the S60/Ca10 treatment, partially mitigated these reductions for Ca but not for K and Mg. Moreover, while Fe concentration remained statistically unchanged across treatments, micronutrients such as Mn and Zn exhibited clear treatment-related trends. Notably, Mn and Zn concentrations increased under combined high salinity and calcium application, with S120/Ca10 showing the highest values for both elements in basal leaves.
A similar pattern was observed in top leaves (Table 6), where Na concentration increased significantly in response to salinity. More specifically, S120 and S120/Ca10 exhibited the highest Na accumulation, whereas Ca addition alone (Ca10) led to a reduction in Na concentration. Interestingly, K and Ca levels in top leaves declined progressively with increasing salinity, and this effect was not fully reversed by Ca supplementation. Mg concentration also declined under saline conditions, with the lowest values in the S120/Ca10 treatment. In terms of micronutrients, Fe content remained relatively stable, whereas Mn and Zn exhibited moderate increases under calcium-enriched conditions, particularly in the S60/Ca10 treatment.
In stem tissues (Table 7), Na accumulation followed the same increasing trend under salinity, reaching its peak in S120. Concurrently, K concentration decreased with increasing salinity, while Ca levels remained statistically stable across treatments. Magnesium (Mg) levels remained consistent among treatments, and Mn increased under high salinity, while Fe displayed variable responses without clear treatment effects.
In the roots (Table 8), Na concentration increased substantially under all salinity treatments, reaching its highest value in the S120/Ca10 treatment. However, unlike the shoot tissues, root K and Mg concentrations remained unaffected by salinity and/or calcium supplementation. Calcium (Ca) concentrations in the roots declined under salinity (S60 and S120) but remained somewhat higher when Ca was supplied (S60/Ca10 and S120/Ca10). Moreover, micronutrient accumulation, particularly Mn and Zn, was strongly enhanced under salinity, with the highest Zn concentration recorded in S120/Ca10. The elevation of Mn levels was also significant and prominent in the S60, S120, and S120/Ca10 treatments compared to the control, pointing to increased uptake or possibly reduced translocation from roots to shoots under salt stress.
The concentration of Cl in the stems increased in response to the addition of CaCl2·2H2O (Ca10) and NaCl (S60, S120) to the nutrient solution, with more pronounced accumulation observed in the S60 and S120 treatments compared to their respective combinations with calcium (S60/Ca10, S120/Ca10). In general, as salinity increased from 60 to 120 mM NaCl, stem Cl concentration rose significantly relative to the control, although no significant differences were detected between S60 and S120. A similar trend was observed in the roots, where all treatments resulted in a statistically significant increase in Cl concentration compared to the control. However, no significant differences were found between the S60 and S120, S60/Ca10, and S120/Ca10 treatments. Regarding nitrogen (N), salinity also had a notable effect on its concentration in plant tissues (Table 6). In basal leaves, salinity treatments combined with calcium (S60/Ca10 and S120/Ca10) led to significantly higher N concentrations compared to the other treatments (C, Ca10, S60, S120). In contrast, N concentration in the top leaves was not significantly affected by any of the treatments.

4. Discussion

Pomegranate is generally a crop that can respond very well to soils with increased salinity [17,31,35]. In the present work, the plants showed no visible symptoms of leaf toxicity, chlorosis, or necrosis. However, the FW of leaves and stems was significantly reduced, by the addition of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts to the nutrient solution. Root FW was not significantly affected in any of the salinity treatments, indicating a degree of stress tolerance or compensatory growth in the root system. The combination of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O did not significantly alleviate the reductions in FW of the different vegetative parts, especially under high salinity (S120/Ca10), where pronounced declines were observed. The DW of leaves was significantly reduced by the inclusion of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts to the nutrient solution, while the stems and root DW was significantly reduced only by the addition of NaCl. Notably, the S60/Ca10 treatment maintained leaf DW at levels comparable to the control, suggesting a potential protective role of calcium under moderate salinity, rather than an actual increase. Generally, salinity has negative effects on both the fresh [36] and dry weight of various plant parts [37]. Sun et al. [31] studying 22 pomegranate cultivars found that salt treatment decreased the leaf, stem, and shoot DW on average for all cultivars by 32%, 32%, and 32%, respectively. Similar results were found for explants of orange [38] and bitter almond [39]. Shiyab et al. [38] observed that increasing salinity negatively affected the number and length of lateral shoots in explants of oleander. In pomegranate, salinity has been reported to lead to a reduction in plant height, the length and number of internodes, shoot thickness, and leaf area [40,41]. Moreover, salt stress impacted negatively on the leaf number of pomegranate plants [42] and leaf area [40,41,43].
Adding Ca to the growth medium generally helped to improve the growth of pomegranate plants, an effect that has been also reported in other studies, e.g., [44]. Under saline conditions, Ca addition improves plant growth [45], root elongation [46], and shoot growth [47]. According to Islam et al. [45], application of Ca reverses the salt-induced changes in tomato plants through increasing osmoprotectants and the activation of antioxidant enzymes, as well as by optimizing mineral nutrient status.
With respect to leaf membrane permeability, our results indicated an increase in response to the addition of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts, with a statistically significant effect only observed in the S120 treatment. This suggests that Ca2+ may provide partial protection at moderate levels but is not sufficient to fully prevent membrane destabilization under severe salt stress. This phenomenon is explained by the displacement of Ca2+ from membranes by Na+, leading to increased permeability [48]. Sharma et al. [49] consider that, by making bonds with the phospholipid bilayer, Ca2+ regulates the structure and function of membranes and, hence, stabilizes and promotes their structural integrity in plants subjected to stress conditions.
Saline conditions caused a decrease in chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total chlorophyll contents in pomegranate [17,35,50]. Garcia-Sanchez et al. [51] pointed out that the reduction of leaf chlorophyll concentration is a result of the relationship of Cl and Na with citrus leaf stress. Moreover, it has been reported that salinity affects normal plant growth due to the lack of Mg since some enzymes need Mg2+ for chlorophyll composition, catalysis, and enzymes’ action [52]. Our results showed that Mg concentration in top leaves was reduced by up to 50% under 120 mM NaCl in nutrient solution. The addition of Ca mitigated the negative effects of NaCl in reducing chlorophyll concentration, which was also demonstrated in tomato plants [53].
The mechanisms underlying this synergy could be the following: (1) Maintenance of chlorophyll content (a + b) with calcium supplementation via stabilizing chloroplast membranes and thus preserving photosynthetic pigments [54]; reducing Na+ toxicity, which otherwise disrupts chlorophyll synthesis; and enhancing antioxidant enzyme activities, protecting chlorophyll from ROS-induced degradation [55]. (2) Improvement in plant dry weight, since calcium supports biomass via maintaining cell wall structure and turgor pressure, improving water uptake and transport by preserving root membrane integrity [56], and regulating enzyme activities involved in carbohydrate metabolism and growth. (3) Ionic balance and membrane function. Calcium promotes selective ion uptake, maintaining a favorable K+/Na+ ratio critical for photosynthesis and growth [56].
Some studies may report neutral or even negative effects of Ca on salinity stress mitigation concerning chlorophyll. Discrepancies can be attributed to 1. Genotype-specific responses; 2. Environmental conditions; 3. Growth stage; 4. Soil vs. hydroponics; and 5. Form (e.g., CaCl2 vs. Ca(NO3)2), timing of Ca application, and frequency of application [57]. Interestingly, the mitigation effect of calcium is highly concentration-dependent: (a) Low to moderate Ca2+ level improves ion balance and membrane stability and alleviates NaCl toxicity, (b) excess Ca2+ may cause nutrient antagonism (e.g., with Mg2+ or K+) or can lead to osmotic imbalance or precipitation of phosphates in the nutrient solution [7,56].
Furthermore, while chlorophyll content index (CCI) values were numerically lower in the S60 and S60/Ca10 treatments, these differences were not statistically significant. Interestingly, S120/Ca10 exhibited the highest mean CCI value, despite recording the lowest total chlorophyll content per unit area or weight. This suggests a potential alteration in chlorophyll distribution or leaf structure under combined high salinity and calcium application. A possible explanation for that difference could be that CCI can be influenced by factors beyond just the presence of chlorophyll, including leaf thickness, etc.
In pomegranate plants, the physiological parameters of photosynthesis [photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (Ε), stomatal conductance (gs), water use efficiency (WUE)] were adversely affected by salinity treatments, particularly under high NaCl concentrations (S120 and S120/Ca10). More specifically, stomatal conductance and water use efficiency were significantly reduced only under high salinity (S120 and S120/Ca10), whereas moderate salinity (S60 and S60/Ca10) caused a significant decline in Pn but did not significantly affect gs or WUE. Tattini et al. [37] recorded similar results in Phyllirea plants. The reduction in the rate of photosynthesis under salinity conditions may be due to stomatal or non-stomatal factors [58]. Stomatal closure is the first reaction to inhibit photosynthesis in salinity conditions [59], and increased Cl ion concentration in leaves is the main cause of reduction in photosynthetic rate, which is a non-stomatal factor [60]. Pomegranate salt tolerance is mainly related to stomatal regulation, Na+/Cl uptake, and compartmentalization and osmolyte accumulation [61]. Thus, the observed reduction in photosynthesis was partly associated with reduced stomatal conductance under high salinity, although non-stomatal factors such as ion toxicity and pigment degradation may also have contributed under moderate stress. Another factor that contributed to this result may be the reduction in K+ concentration observed under salinity, since K plays a crucial role in enhancing photosynthetic capacity by elevating the concentration of photosynthetic pigments and promoting photosynthate production through stomatal opening. While the addition of calcium (Ca10) showed some capacity to mitigate declines in photosynthesis-related traits under moderate salinity, it was not sufficient to prevent significant impairments at higher NaCl concentrations.
Generally, salinity affects the ion balance in pomegranate tissues through impeding the ion uptake, accumulation, and transport [41]. Hence, the plants treated with NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O showed a significant increase in Cl concentration in stems and roots, especially under the S60 and S120 treatments. Similar results were observed in other plants [52,62]. However, when Ca was applied in combination with NaCl (S60/Ca10, S120/Ca10), Cl concentrations were generally lower than those recorded in NaCl-only treatments, suggesting a partial mitigating effect of Ca2+ on Cl accumulation. This is consistent with previous findings showing that Ca in the nutrient solution can modulate Cl toxicity by restricting its upward transport [63]. While some literature reports that calcium alone can reduce Na+ and Cl concentrations in pomegranate leaves [48], our data showed that Na accumulation in all plant parts increased with salinity and was highest in the S120/Ca10 treatment. This indicates that calcium was not able to significantly reduce Na+ levels under severe salinity in this study. Moreover, in orange plants grown under salinity conditions, Ca2+ was found to be effective in reducing the transport of Cl from roots to leaves, resulting in foliar protection under saline conditions [64,65], a phenomenon partially reflected in our findings for stems and roots but not clearly evident in leaves.
The concentration of N increased significantly in the basal leaves, while it was unaffected in the top leaves. Although several experiments performed under laboratory and greenhouse conditions have shown that salinity reduces N concentration in pomegranates [17,66], our findings suggest a differential response depending on leaf age or position. Nitrogen is the element that mostly determines plant growth. Thus, in the present work, the increase in basal leaf N concentration may have been due to the general decrease in vegetative growth observed in pomegranate plants, leading to a concentration effect, while its lack of change in top leaves may reflect limited competition between Cl and NO3 for uptake or translocation under the present salinity levels [67].
The concentration of K in the basal leaves, top leaves, and stems showed a significant decrease with the addition of NaCl alone or in combination with NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O. For plants growing at high concentrations of Na+ in the nutrient medium, a significant decrease in K+ concentration and K+:Na+ ratio has been observed in the plant tissue [41,68,69]. Due to their similar physicochemical properties, Na+ competes with K+ in plant uptake specifically through high-affinity potassium transporters (HKTs) and nonselective cation channels (NSCCs). Membrane depolarization caused by Na+ makes it difficult for K+ to be taken up by K+ inward-rectifying channels (KIRs) and increases K+ leakage from the cell by activating potassium outward-rectifying channels (KORs) [70]. The addition of CaCl2·2H2O alone to the nutrient solution enhanced the concentration of K in the basal leaves and the stems, but these increases were not statistically significant. In contrast, in the roots, treatment with 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O (Ca10) resulted in a statistically significant increase in K+ concentration compared to the control. According to several reports, supplemental Ca promotes K uptake and transport in plants [71,72]. Moreover, our results confirm that the beneficial effect of Ca2+ under salinity stress is more evident in the root tissues than in the shoot. While K+ concentrations in leaves and stems remained low under saline conditions, regardless of Ca addition, root K+ content was preserved or even improved with Ca application, supporting the view that Ca2+ plays a protective role in root ion homeostasis under stress [73,74].
Calcium increases the plant tissue resistance under various stress conditions including both biotic and abiotic stresses. Calcium uptake under salinity conditions is reduced due to ionic interactions, precipitation, and increased ionic strength [27]. Also, root growth and function can be negatively affected due to a high Na+/Ca+ ratio [25]. Humphery and Rodriguez [75] observed that the mechanism by which Ca2+ moves into roots is impaired under salinity conditions, and consequently, the Ca concentration is also reduced. In the present study, Ca concentration was significantly reduced in basal leaves, top leaves, and roots of pomegranate plants treated with NaCl, particularly under the highest salinity level (S120). In contrast, the inclusion of 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O to the nutrient solution led to an increase in Ca concentration in both basal leaves and roots either when applied alone (Ca10) or in combination with NaCl (S60/Ca10, S120/Ca10), though the effect was more pronounced in the latter. Calcium is important for cell biology under saline conditions because it maintains the integrity of cell membranes, regulates osmotic pressure, and maintains K+/Na+ selectivity [76]. Our findings align with these roles, as supplemental Ca appeared to mitigate ionic imbalances in tissues, particularly by supporting Ca retention in roots and lower leaves under salt stress. An increase in Ca concentration in plants treated with CaCl2·2H2O was also observed in other studies [77,78].
The addition of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts to the nutrient solution reduced the Mg concentration in the basal and top leaves of pomegranate plants. This reduction was most pronounced in the 120 mM NaCl (S120) and 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O (Ca10) treatments and remained low in the combined treatments (S60/Ca10 and S120/Ca10), indicating that neither Ca supplementation nor moderate salinity prevented this decline. A decline in leaf Mg concentration under salinity conditions has also been reported in pomegranate [35]. In stems, the Mg concentration was decreased by the addition of 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O, while the addition of NaCl alone (S60, S120) led to a moderate increase in the Mg concentration. However, when CaCl2·2H2O was combined with NaCl (S60/Ca10 and S120/Ca10), Mg levels declined again, indicating a possible antagonistic interaction between Ca and Mg uptake under both normal and saline conditions. The concentration of Mg in the roots of pomegranate plants was not statistically significantly affected by the addition of salts to the nutrient solution, which was also observed in orange plants [63]. The absorption rate of Mg is significantly reduced by K and Ca cations [7]. Thus, high concentrations of Ca2+ in the nutrient solution result in a reduction of Mg concentration in the leaves [79].
As NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O increased in the nutrient solution, Na concentration in all parts increased, too. Similar results were observed in many works conducted on pomegranate plants, showing an increase in Na in plant tissue with increasing NaCl concentration in irrigation water [31,43,50,80,81,82,83,84]. In the present work, Na concentration was higher in roots than in basal leaves, and higher in basal than in top leaves, a result that was also observed by Naeini et al. [80]. This suggests a regulated exclusion or compartmentalization mechanism, whereby roots act as a buffer to limit Na+ translocation to aboveground tissues. Sodium accumulation in roots is part of a protective mechanism of plants against Na toxicity, and only when salinity exceeds a certain threshold does Na accumulation increase in leaves [80]. These results agree with other studies on pomegranate [41,85,86] suggesting the ability of this species to accumulate Na+ in roots as a strategy to alleviate the detrimental effect of salt stress. Contrary to some earlier studies, in our work, Na+ concentration did not consistently decrease in all plant tissues upon Ca addition. However, the combination treatment under moderate salinity (S60/Ca10) resulted in lower Na+ levels in both roots and basal leaves compared to the respective NaCl-only treatment (S60), suggesting a partial mitigating effect of calcium under moderate salt stress. Similar findings have been reported in citrus species [87]. With the presence of Ca in the nutrient solution, plants obtain the ability to cope with the adverse effects of Na concentration [87]. Moreover, the presence of Ca is essential in maintaining K/Na selectivity, as well as in preventing the deleterious replacement of Ca2+ by Na+ in cell membranes [88].
Saline nutrient solutions increased the Fe concentration in basal leaves in all salt treatments. In top leaves, stems, and roots, the addition of salts caused fluctuations in Fe concentration, but these changes were not statistically significant, confirming that Fe responses to salinity may be tissue-specific and variable. Trace element solubility usually is diminished under salinity conditions, but aboveground trace element concentration may increase, decrease, or remain stable depending on plant species, tissue, salinity, trace element concentration, and environmental conditions [57]. There is evidence that salinity can cause Fe deficiency in plants [27], though this was not observed in the basal leaves of pomegranate in our study.
The addition of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts to the nutrient solution led to a significant increase in Mn concentration in the basal leaves of pomegranate plants. Similarly, an increase was observed in the top leaves, which was statistically significant only in the treatments with a combination of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts (S60/Ca10 and S120/Ca10), suggesting a synergistic effect. Regarding stems, Mn concentration presented a significant enhancement only in plants irrigated with high amounts of NaCl (S120), while CaCl2·2H2O alone did not significantly affect Mn levels in this tissue. In roots, the addition of salts led to an increase in Mn concentration, but this was significantly reduced when 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O was applied alone (Ca10), indicating a possible antagonism between Ca and Mn uptake. Some studies in tomato plants have shown that salinity has no effect [89] or increases [90] the concentration of Mn in the leaves and stems of the plants, depending on cultivar and environmental conditions.
Leaf Zn concentration led to an increase by the inclusion of NaCl and CaCl2·2H2O salts into the nutrient solution, but in top leaves, the increase was statistically significant only in the 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O treatment. Regarding the stems and roots, Zn concentration showed an increase that was statistically significant only in the 10 mM CaCl2·2H2O treatment. According to other studies, in citrus species, Zn concentration increased under salinity conditions [91], and our findings suggest that calcium supplementation may play a more decisive role than NaCl alone in modifying Zn uptake and distribution in pomegranate.
The above effects of saline treatments on the content of micronutrients in pomegranate plants can be attributed to the negative effects of salinity on ionic balance and osmotic potential [7,27], as well as potential competitive or synergistic interactions between macronutrients and trace elements in uptake and transport pathways.

5. Conclusions

The above results and the fact that visible symptoms appeared in pomegranate plants only under the treatments with high NaCl concentrations, and only at the final stage of the experiment, confirm the considerable tolerance of this species to salinity and its potential for cultivation in soils with relatively high salt content. However, salinity induced by NaCl clearly affected plant growth, physiological function, and chemical composition, indicating that even salt-tolerant species such as pomegranate may experience substantial sublethal stress. The role of calcium under saline conditions was shown to be beneficial in specific aspects, particularly under moderate salinity. Calcium supplementation improved ion homeostasis, partially alleviated Na+ accumulation, supported K+ retention in roots, and contributed to the maintenance of photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll content. However, its effect was not uniformly positive across all parameters or tissue types, and under high salinity (S120/Ca10), the addition of calcium was not sufficient to reverse growth inhibition or membrane destabilization. Therefore, calcium can be considered a potentially useful amendment under moderate salinity, but its mitigating capacity under severe salt stress appears limited. This underscores the need to better understand the interaction between salinity levels, calcium dosage, and plant developmental stages. Further research should be intensified to generate practical knowledge for the sustainable cultivation of pomegranate in saline environments and to optimize strategies—such as calcium supplementation—that may enhance plant tolerance and productivity under such stress conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C.; methodology, C.C., N.D., C.A., I.E.P., I.T. and S.K.; software, C.C., N.D., C.A. and I.E.P.; validation, C.C., N.D., C.A., I.E.P. and I.T.; formal analysis, N.D., C.C., C.A. and I.E.P.; investigation, C.C. and N.D.; resources, N.D.; data curation, C.C., N.D. and C.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C., N.D. and C.A.; writing—review and editing, C.C., C.A., I.E.P., I.T. and S.K.; visualization, C.C., N.D. and C.A.; supervision, C.C.; project administration, C.C.; funding acquisition, C.C. and N.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to G. Kostelenos (Kostelenos Nurseries, Greece) for kindly providing the pomegranate plants; also, they thank S. Kouti and V. Tsakiridou for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Therios, I. Inorganic Nutrition and Fertilizers; Gartaganis Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2021; 873p. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  2. Keren, R. Salt-affected soil reclamation. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment; Hillel, D., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 454–461. ISBN 9780123485304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pearson, K.E.; Warrence, N.J.; Bauder, J.W. Basics of Salinity and Sodicity Effects on Soil Physical Properties; Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2003; Available online: https://waterquality.montana.edu/energy/cbm/background/soil-prop.html#Growth (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  4. Flowers, T. Plants and salinity-Preface. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 3395–3403. [Google Scholar]
  5. Munns, R.; Husain, S.; Rivelli, A.R.; Ritchard, A.; James, R.A.; Condon, A.G.T.; Lindsay, M.P.; Lagudah, E.S.; Daniel, P.; Schachtman, D.P.; et al. Avenues for increasing salt tolerance of crops, and the role of physiologically based selection traits. Plant Soil 2002, 247, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Flowers, T.J.; Yeo, A.R. Breeding for salinity resistance in crop plants, where next? Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1995, 22, 875–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marschner, P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; 672p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Parida, A.K.; Das, A.B. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005, 60, 324–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Fernandez-Garcia, N.; Martinez, V.; Carvajal, M. Effect of salinity on growth, mineral composition, and water relations of grafted tomato plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2004, 167, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brugnoli, E.; Bjorkman, O. Growth of cotton under continuous salinity stress: Influence on allocation pattern, stomatal and non-stomatal components of photosynthesis and dissipation of excess light energy. Planta 1992, 187, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pearson, R.W. Soil environment and root development. In Plant Environment and Efficient Water Use; Peirre, W.H., Kirkham, D., Pesek, J., Shaw, R., Eds.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 95–126. [Google Scholar]
  12. Del Amor, F.M.; Martinez, V.; Cerda, A. Salt tolerance of tomato plants as affected by stage of plant development. Hortic. Sci. 2001, 36, 1260–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jenks, M.A.; Hasegawa, P.M.; Jain, S.M. Advances in Molecular Breeding Toward Drought and Salt Tolerant Crops; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Debouda, M.; Gouia, H.; Ghorbel, M.H. NaCl effects growth, ions and water status of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) seedlings. Acta Bot. Gall. 2006, 153, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patil, V.K.; Waghmare, P.R. Salinity tolerance of pomegranate. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 1982, 7, 268–269. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jain, B.L.; Daas, H.C. Effect of saline water on pomegranate of sapling of jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana), Indian cherry (Cordia dichotoma var. Wallichi) and pomegranate (Punica granatum) at nursery stage. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1988, 58, 420–421. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mastrogiannidou, E.; Chatzissavvidis, C.; Antonopoulou, C.; Tsabardoukas, V.; Giannakoula, A.; Therios, I. Response of pomegranate cv. Wonderful plants to salinity. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 16, 621–636. [Google Scholar]
  18. Döring, J.; Lüdders, P. Effect of different salt treatment on Punica granatum at different root temperatures. Gartenbauwissenschaft 1986, 52, 92–96. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doring, J.; Lüdders, P. Influence of sodium salts on Na, Cl and SO4 content in leaves, shoots and roots of Punica granatum. Gartenbauwissenschaft 1987, 52, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rengel, Z. The role of calcium in salt toxicity. Plant Cell Environ. 1992, 15, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Faust, M.; Shear, C.E. The effect of calcium on respiration of apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1972, 97, 437–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gerald, C.J. Influence of osmotic potential, temperature and calcium on growth of plants roots. Agron. J. 1971, 63, 555–558. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ehret, D.L.; Remann, R.E.; Harvey, B.L.; Cipywnyk, A. Salinity-induced calcium deficiencies in wheat and barley. Plant Soil 1990, 128, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Navarro, J.M.; Martinez, V.; Carvajal, M. Ammonium, bicarbonate and calcium effects on tomato plants grown under saline conditions. Plant Sci. 2000, 157, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cramer, G.R.; Lauchli, A.; Epstein, E. Effect of NaCl and CaCl2 on ion activities in complex nutrient solutions and root growth of cotton. Plant Physiol. 1986, 81, 792–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bush, D.S. Calcium regulation in plant cells and its role in signaling. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1995, 46, 95–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Grattan, S.R.; Grieve, C.M. Mineral element acquisition and growth response of plants grown in saline environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1992, 38, 275–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Melgarejo-Sánchez, P.; Martínez, J.J.; Hernández, F.; Legua, P.; Martínez, R.; Melgarejo, P. The pomegranate tree in the world: New cultivars and uses. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1089, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarafi, E.; Chatzissavvidis, C.; Therios, I. Response of two pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cultivars to six boron concentrations: Growth performance, nutrient status, gas exchange parameters, chlorophyll fluorescence, and proline and carbohydrate content. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Rana, T.S.; Narzary, D.; Verma, N.; Meshram, D.T.; Ranade, S.A. Pomegranate biology and biotechnology: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 235, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sun, Y.; Niu, G.; Masabni, J.G.; Ganjegunte, G. Relative salt tolerance of 22 pomegranate (Punica granatum) cultivars. HortScience 2018, 53, 1513–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wintermans, J.F.; de Mots, A. Spectrophotometric characteristics of chlorophylls a and b and their pheophytins in ethanol. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1965, 109, 448–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jones, J.B., Jr. Kjeldahl Method for Nitrogen (N) Determination; Micro-Macro Publishing: Athens, Georgia, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  34. Richards, L.A. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In Agriculture Handbook; Richards, L.A., Ed.; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954; pp. 157–160. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dichala, O.; Therios, I.; Papadopoulos, A.; Chatzistathis, T.; Chatzisavvidis, C.; Antonopoulou, C. Effects of varying concentrations of different salts on mineral composition of leaves and roots of three pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 275, 109718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chartzoulakis, K.; Klapaki, G. Response of two greenhouse pepper hybrids to NaCl salinity during different growth stages. Sci. Hortic. 2000, 86, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tattini, M.; Panzio, C.; Coradeschi, M.A.; Tafani, R.; Traversi, M.L. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in olive plants. Acta Hortic. 1994, 356, 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shiyab, S.M.; Shibli, R.A.; Mohammad, M.M. Influence of sodium chloride salt stress on growth and nutrient acquisition of sour orange in vitro. J. Plant Nutr. 2003, 26, 985–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shibli, R.; Shatnawi, M.A.; Swaidat, I.Q. Growth, osmotic adjustment, and nutrient acquisition of bitter almond under induced sodium chloride salinity in vitro. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2003, 34, 1969–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Amri, E.; Mirzaei, M.; Moradi, M.; Zare, K. The effects of spermidine and putrescine polyamines on growth of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv ‘Rabbab’) in salinity circumstance. Int. J. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 3, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, C.; Yan, M.; Huang, X.; Yuan, Z. Effects of NaCl stress on growth and ion homeostasis in pomegranate tissues. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 85, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
  42. El-Agamy, S.Z.; Mostafa, R.A.; Shaaban, M.M.; El-Mahdy, M.T. In vitro salt and drought tolerance of Manfalouty and Nab El-Gamal pomegranate cultivars. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 1076–1082. [Google Scholar]
  43. Naeini, M.R.; Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Fallahi, E. Partitioning of chlorine, sodium, and potassium and shoot growth of three pomegranate cultivars under different levels of salinity. J. Plant Nutr. 2006, 29, 1835–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhong, H.; Lauchli, A. Changes of cell wall composition and polymer size in primary roots of cotton seedlings under high salinity. J. Exp. Bot. 1993, 44, 773–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Islam, M.M.; Jahan, K.; Sen, A.; Urmi, T.A.; Haque, M.M.; Ali, H.M.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Murata, Y. Exogenous application of calcium ameliorates salinity stress tolerance of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and enhances fruit quality. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zidan, I.; Azaizeh, H.; Neumann, P.M. Does salinity reduce growth in maize root epidermal cells by inhibiting their capacity for cell wall acidification? Plant Physiol. 1990, 93, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yeo, A.R.; Lee, K.S.; Izard, P.; Boursier, P.J.; Flowers, T.J. Short-and long-term effects of salinity on leaf growth in rice (Oryza sativa). J. Exp. Bot. 1991, 42, 881–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rashedy, A.A.; Abd-El Nafea, M.H.; Khedr, E.H. Co-application of proline or calcium and humic acid enhances productivity of salt stressed pomegranate by improving nutritional status and osmoregulation mechanisms. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sharma, D.; Jamra, G.; Singh, U.M.; Sood, S.; Kumar, A. Calcium biofortification: Three pronged molecular approaches for dissecting complex traits of calcium nutrition in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) for devising strategies of enrichment of food crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Khayyat, M.; Tehranifar, A.; Davarynejad, G.H.; Sayyari-Zahan, M.H. Vegetative growth, compatible solute accumulation, ion partitioning and chlorophyll fluorescence of ‘Malas-Saveh’ and ‘Shishe-Kab’ pomegranates in response to salinity stress. Photosynthetica 2014, 52, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Garcia-Sanchez, F.; Jifon, J.L.; Carvajal, M.; Syvertsen, J.P. Gas exchange, chlorophyll and nutrient contents in relation to Na+ and Cl- accumulation in “Sunburst” mandarin grafted on different rootstock. Plant Sci. 2002, 162, 705–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, A.M.; Ungar, I.A.; Showalter, A.M. Effects of sodium chloride treatments on growth and ion accumulation of the halophyte Haloxylon recurvum. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2000, 31, 2763–2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Montesano, F.; van Iersel, M.W. Calcium can prevent toxic effects of Na+ on tomato leaf photosynthesis but does not restore growth. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2007, 132, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Gul, Z.; Guo, X.-R.; Abozeid, A.; Tang, Z.-H. Effects of exogenous calcium on adaptive growth, photosynthesis, ion homeostasis and phenolics of Gleditsia sinensis Lam. plants under salt stress. Agriculture 2021, 11, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Almeselmani, M.; Deshmukh, P.; Sairam, R. High temperature stress tolerance in wheat genotypes: Role of antioxidant defense enzymes. Acta Agron. Hung. 2009, 57, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R. Calcium in plants. Ann. Bot. 2003, 92, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Grattan, S.R.; Grieve, C.M. Salinity–mineral nutrient relations in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 1999, 78, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dubey, R.S. Photosynthesis in plants under stressful conditions. In Handbook of Photosynthesis, 2nd ed.; Pessarakli, M., Ed.; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 717–737. [Google Scholar]
  59. Paranychianakis, N.V.; Chartzoulakis, K.S.; Angelakis, A.N. Influence of rootstock, irrigation level and recycled water on water relations and gas exchange of Soultanina grapevines. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2004, 52, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Moya, J.L.; Tadeo, F.R.; Gomez-Cadenas, A.; Primo-Millo, E.; Talon, M. Transmissible salt tolerance traits identified through reciprocal grafts between sensitive Carrizo and tolerance Cleopatra citrus genotypes. J. Plant Physiol. 2002, 159, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Calzone, A.; Cotrozzi, L.; Lorenzini, G.; Nali, C.; Pellegrini, E. Hyperspectral detection and monitoring salt stress in pomegranate cultivars. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Khan, M.A.; Ungar, I.A.; Showalter, A.M. Effects of salinity on growth, ion content, and osmotic relations in Halopyrum mocoronatum (L.) Stapf. J. Plant Nutr. 1999, 22, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Maas, E.V. Salinity and citriculture. Tree Physiol. 1993, 12, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zekri, M.; Parsons, L.R. Salinity tolerance of Citrus rootstocks: Effect of salt on root and leaf mineral concentrations. Plant Soil 1992, 147, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Banuls, J.; Serna, M.D.; Legaz, F.; Talon, M.; Primo-Millo, E. Growth and gas exchange parameters of citrus plants stressed with different salts. J. Plant Physiol. 1997, 150, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kulkarni, T.S.; Desai, U.T.; Kshirsagar, D.B.; Kamble, A.B. Effects of salt regimes on growth and mineral uptake of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv. Mrudula. Ann. Arid Zone 2007, 46, 77. [Google Scholar]
  67. Cerezo, M.; Garcia-Agustin, P.; Serna, M.D.; Primo-Millo, E. Kinetics of nitrate uptake by citrus seedlings and inhibitory effects of salinity. Plant Sci. 1997, 126, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Maathuis, F.J.M.; Amtmann, A. K+ nutrition and Na+ toxicity: The basis of cellular K+/Na+ ratios. Ann. Bot. 1999, 84, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shabala, S.; Demidchik, V.; Shabala, L.; Cuin, T.A.; Smith, S.J.; Miller, A.J.; Davies, J.M.; Newman, I.A. Extracellular Ca2+ ameliorates NaCl-induced K+ loss from Arabidopsis root and leaf cells by controlling plasma membrane K+-permeable channels. Plant Physiol. 2006, 141, 1653–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wakeel, A. Potassium–sodium interactions in soil and plant under saline-sodic conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nakamura, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Ohta, E.; Sakata, M. Protective effects of external Ca2+ on elongation and intracellular concentration of K+ in intact mung bean roots under high NaCl stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 1990, 31, 815–821. [Google Scholar]
  72. Subbarrao, G.V.; Johansen, C.; Jana, M.K.; Kumar Rao, J.V.D.K. Effects of the sodium/calcium ratio in modifying salinity response of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). J. Plant Physiol. 1990, 136, 439–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Izzo, R.; Scagnozzi, A.; Belligno, A.; Navari-Izzo, F. Influence of NaCl treatment on Ca, K and Na interrelations in maize shoots. In Optimization of Plant Nutrition; Fragoso, M.A.C., van Beusichem, M.L., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 577–582. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lopez, M.V.; Satti, S.M.E. Calcium and potassium-enhanced growth and yield of tomato under sodium chloride stress. Plant Sci. 1996, 144, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Humphery, A.E.; Rodriguez, V. Ion compartmentation in salinity-stressed alfalfa seedling growing under different temperature regimes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 2607–2618. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tozlu, I.; Moore, G.A.; Guy, C.L. Effects of increasing NaCl concentration on stem elongation, dry mass production, and macro-and-micro-nutrient accumulation in Poncirus trifoliata. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2000, 27, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  77. Banuls, J.; Legaz, F.; Primo-Millo, E. Effect of salinity on uptake and distribution of chloride and sodium in some Citrus scion-rootstock combinations. J. Hortic. Sci. 1990, 65, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ruiz, D.; Martinez, V.; Cerda, A. Demarcating specific ion (NaCl, Cl-, Na+) and osmotic effects in the response of two Citrus rootstocks to salinity. Sci. Hortic. 1999, 80, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. López-Lefebre, L.R.; Rivero, R.M.; García, P.C.; Sánchez, E.; Ruiz, J.M.; Romero, L. Effect of calcium on mineral nutrient uptake and growth of tobacco. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2001, 81, 1334–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Naeini, M.R.; Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Lessani, H.; Fallahi, E. Effect of sodium chloride-induced salinity on mineral nutrients and soluble sugars in three commercial cultivars of pomegranate. J. Plant Nutr. 2004, 27, 1319–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Okhovatian-Ardakani, A.R.; Mehrabanian, M.; Dehghani, E.; Akbarzadeh, A. Salt tolerance evaluation and relative comparison in cuttings of different pomegranate cultivars. Plant Soil Environ. 2010, 56, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Karimi, H.R.; Hassanpour, Z. Effects of salinity and water stress on growth and macro nutrients concentration of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). J. Plant Nutr. 2014, 37, 1937–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Khayyat, M.; Tehranifar, A.; Davarynejad, G.H.; Sayyari-Zahan, M.H. Effects of NaCl salinity on some leaf nutrient concentrations, non-photochemical quenching and the efficiency of the PSII photochemistry of two Iranian pomegranate varieties under greenhouse and field conditions: Preliminary results. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 1752–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Karimi, H.R.; Hassanpour, H. Effects of salinity, rootstock, and position of sampling on macro nutrient concentration of pomegranate cv. Gabri. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 2269–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Marathe, R.A.; Chandra, R.; Jadhav, V.T.; Singh, R. Soil and nutritional aspects in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Environ. Ecol. 2009, 27, 630–637. [Google Scholar]
  86. Calzone, A.; Cotrozzi, L.; Pellegrini, E.; Guidi, L.; Lorenzini, G.; Nali, C. Differential response strategies of pomegranate cultivars lead to similar tolerance to increasing salt concentrations. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 271, 109441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Chatzissavvidis, C.; Papadakis, I.; Therios, I. Effect of calcium on the ion status and growth performance of a citrus rootstock grown under NaCl stress. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2008, 54, 910–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hasegawa, P.H.; Bressan, R.A.; Zhu, J.K.; Bohnert, H.J. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2000, 51, 463–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Al-Harbi, A.R. Growth and nutrient composition of tomato and cucumber seedlings as affected by sodium chloride salinity and supplemental calcium. J. Plant Nutr. 1995, 18, 1403–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Niazi, B.H.; Ahmed, T. Effect of sodium chloride and zinc on the growth of tomato. II. Uptake of ions. Geobios 1984, 11, 155–160. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ruiz, D.; Martinez, V.; Cerda, A. Citrus response to salinity: Growth and nutrient uptake. Tree Physiol. 1997, 17, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Pomegranate leaves with symptoms of salt toxicity.
Figure 1. Pomegranate leaves with symptoms of salt toxicity.
Horticulturae 11 00786 g001
Figure 2. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on leaf photosynthetic rate (A), transpiration rate (B), stomatal conductance (C), and water use efficiency (D) of pomegranate cv. Wonderful. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each plate indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Figure 2. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on leaf photosynthetic rate (A), transpiration rate (B), stomatal conductance (C), and water use efficiency (D) of pomegranate cv. Wonderful. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each plate indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Horticulturae 11 00786 g002aHorticulturae 11 00786 g002b
Table 1. Composition of nutrient solutions (NaCl and CaCl2; 2H2O) applied per treatment to pomegranate plants.
Table 1. Composition of nutrient solutions (NaCl and CaCl2; 2H2O) applied per treatment to pomegranate plants.
TreatmentsNaCl (mM)CaCl2·2H2O (mM)
1C00
2Ca10010
3S60600
4S1201200
5S60/Ca106010
6S120/Ca1012010
Table 2. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on growth parameters (fresh weight basis) of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful), including leaf fresh weight, stem fresh weight, root fresh weight, total plant fresh weight, and shoot-to-root ratio. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 2. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on growth parameters (fresh weight basis) of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful), including leaf fresh weight, stem fresh weight, root fresh weight, total plant fresh weight, and shoot-to-root ratio. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsLeaf Fresh Weight (g)Stem Fresh Weight (g)Root Fresh Weight (g)Plant Fresh Weight (g)Shoot/Root
C17.76 a9.99 a15.32 a43.07 a2.23 a
Ca1011.80 b6.71 b11.07 a29.58 b1.69 a
S6012.10 b6.22 b13.78 a32.10 b1.35 a
S60/Ca109.38 bc4.46 b10.25 a24.09 b1.46 a
S1209.79 bc5.19 b10.65 a25.64 b1.41 a
S120/Ca107.95 c4.38 b9.06 a21.39 b1.34 a
Table 3. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on total plant height, leaf number per plant and other growth parameters (dry weight basis) of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful), including leaf dry weight, stem dry weight, root dry weight, total plant dry weight, and shoot-to-root ratio. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 3. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on total plant height, leaf number per plant and other growth parameters (dry weight basis) of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful), including leaf dry weight, stem dry weight, root dry weight, total plant dry weight, and shoot-to-root ratio. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsPlant Height (cm)Leaf Number
per Plant
Leaf Dry Weight (g)Stem Dry Weight (g)Root Dry Weight (g)Plant Dry Weight (g)Shoot/Root
C50.42 a88.67 a6.45 a4.14 a2.77 a13.36 a3.97 b
Ca1046.82 a61.92 bc4.50 bc2.86 b1.95 b9.31 b3.77 bc
S6042.13 a73.17 ab4.17 bc2.52 b1.88 b8.57 b3.59 bc
S60/Ca1040.38 a52.83 bc6.75 a1.80 b1.71 b10.26 ab5.30 a
S12042.83 a60.42 bc3.28 c2.24 b1.84 b7.37 b2.97 c
S120/Ca1039.38 a40.58 c5.74 ab1.90 b1.70 b9.34 b4.54 ab
Table 4. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on permeability of leaf cell membranes in leaves of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of four replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level. C1 and C2 represent electrical conductivity, while K1 and K2 represent potassium concentrations, before (C1, K1) and after (C2. K2) heat and pressure treatment of the solutions, respectively.
Table 4. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on permeability of leaf cell membranes in leaves of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of four replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level. C1 and C2 represent electrical conductivity, while K1 and K2 represent potassium concentrations, before (C1, K1) and after (C2. K2) heat and pressure treatment of the solutions, respectively.
C1/C2C1/C1+C2K1/K2K1/K1+K2
C0.57 b0.36 b0.94 a0.48 a
Ca100.66 ab0.39 ab0.98 a0.49 a
S600.65 ab0.39 ab0.92 a0.48 a
S60/Ca100.67 ab0.40 ab1.01 a0.50 a
S1201.01 a0.49 a0.95 a0.49 a
S120/Ca101.57 a0.52 a0.99 a0.50 a
Table 5. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on leaf chlorophyll parameters of pomegranate cv. Wonderful. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 5. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on leaf chlorophyll parameters of pomegranate cv. Wonderful. Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within each column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsChlorophyll a + b
(mg/g Fresh Weight)
Chlorophyll a + b
(mg/cm2)
CCI Units
C3.84 a0.040 a40.21 a
Ca103.80 a0.041 a32.50 a
S604.19 a0.037 a30.26 a
S60/Ca102.56 ab0.031 ab30.34 a
S1203.17 ab0.034 ab37.36 a
S120/Ca101.79 b0.025 b41.75 a
Table 6. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in basal and top leaves of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column and plant organ indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 6. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in basal and top leaves of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column and plant organ indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsNKCaMgNaFeMnZn
(% Dry Weight)(mg kg−1 Dry Weight)
Basal leaves
C1.91 c1.31 ab1.88 a0.19 a0.19 c91.50 a19.33 c12.17 c
Ca101.82 c1.38 a1.92 a0.20 a0.14 c118.17 a26.50 bc15.17 bc
S603.14 bc1.22 bc1.29 c0.16 b0.94 b145.17 a26.17 bc13.67 c
S60/Ca105.21 a1.16 c1.52 b0.16 b0.94 b90.00 a25.00 bc19.67 ab
S1202.79 bc1.09 cd1.17 c0.15 b1.22 ab129.83 a30.83 ab14.83 bc
S120/Ca104.85 a0.97 d1.22 c0.15 b1.40 a106.77 a34.51 a22.87 a
Top leaves
C2.26 ab1.31 a1.20 a0.16 a0.16 c50.50 a13.33 c11.17 b
Ca102.40 a1.29 ab1.08 a0.13 b0.09 c51.00 a17.83 ab15.33 a
S602.42 a1.21 b0.59 c0.13 b0.78 b46.50 a17.83 ab10.83 b
S60/Ca101.99 b1.06 c0.83 b0.10 c0.78 b53.33 a19.50 a13.33 ab
S1202.21 ab1.02 c0.48 c0.09 cd1.14 a50.00 a16.33 abc10.33 b
S120/Ca102.19 ab1.00 c0.50 c0.08 d1.09 a44.67 a15.67 bc11.83 b
Table 7. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in stems of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 7. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in stems of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsKCaMgNaFeMnZn
(% Dry Weight)(mg kg−1 Dry Weight)
C0.97 ab1.08 a0.097 bc0.28 c67.67 a11.33 b31.83 a
Ca101.09 a1.27 a0.085 d0.22 c59.17 a11.17 b31.83 a
S600.85 bc1.22 a0.111 a0.78 ab44.83 a17.67 b32.67 a
S60/Ca100.79 c1.32 a0.084 d0.70 b89.29 a17.35 b57.93 a
S1200.74 c1.11 a0.108 ab0.90 a220.67 a24.17 a97.33 a
S120/Ca100.76 c1.36 a0.093 cd0.87 a43.35 a17.61 b39.33 a
Table 8. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in roots of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
Table 8. Effects of salinity (S60, S120) and calcium (Ca10), applied through the nutrient solution, on nutrient element concentrations in roots of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Wonderful). Data represent the mean of six replicates. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level.
TreatmentsKCaMgNaFeMnZn
(% Dry Weight)(mg kg−1 Dry Weight)
C0.96 a1.52 b0.35 a0.51 c326.17 a40.17 c79.83 c
Ca101.22 a1.75 a0.37 a0.39 c274.00 a38.17 c95.83 bc
S600.93 a1.33 cd0.38 a1.41 a343.17 a61.17 a86.83 c
S60/Ca101.14 a1.45 bc0.32 a1.02 b307.50 a45.17 bc113.50 ab
S1200.94 a1.13 e0.31 a1.38 a306.33 a53.50 ab82.17 c
S120/Ca101.11 a1.24 de0.34 a1.56 a329.67 a57.83 a119.50 a
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

Chatzissavvidis, C.; Devetzi, N.; Antonopoulou, C.; Papadakis, I.E.; Therios, I.; Koundouras, S. Salinity Stress and Calcium in Pomegranate: Impacts on Growth, Ion Homeostasis, and Photosynthesis. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070786

AMA Style

Chatzissavvidis C, Devetzi N, Antonopoulou C, Papadakis IE, Therios I, Koundouras S. Salinity Stress and Calcium in Pomegranate: Impacts on Growth, Ion Homeostasis, and Photosynthesis. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(7):786. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070786

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chatzissavvidis, Christos, Nina Devetzi, Chrysovalantou Antonopoulou, Ioannis E. Papadakis, Ioannis Therios, and Stefanos Koundouras. 2025. "Salinity Stress and Calcium in Pomegranate: Impacts on Growth, Ion Homeostasis, and Photosynthesis" Horticulturae 11, no. 7: 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070786

APA Style

Chatzissavvidis, C., Devetzi, N., Antonopoulou, C., Papadakis, I. E., Therios, I., & Koundouras, S. (2025). Salinity Stress and Calcium in Pomegranate: Impacts on Growth, Ion Homeostasis, and Photosynthesis. Horticulturae, 11(7), 786. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070786

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