# Glutathione-mediated changes in productivity, photosynthetic efficiency, osmolytes, and antioxidant capacity of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown under water deficit

Taia Abd El Mageed, Wael Semida, Khoulood Hemida, Mohammed A.H. Gyushi, Mostafa Rady, Abdelsattar Abdelkhalik, Othmane Merah, Marian Brestic, Heba Mohamed, Ayman El Sabagh, et al.

► To cite this version:

Taia Abd El Mageed, Wael Semida, Khoulood Hemida, Mohammed A.H. Gyushi, Mostafa Rady, et al. Glutathione-mediated changes in productivity, photosynthetic efficiency, osmolytes, and antioxidant capacity of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown under water deficit. PeerJ, 2023, 11, pp.e15343. 10.7717/peerj.15343. hal-04164255

HAL Id: hal-04164255

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04164255

Submitted on 18 Jul 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Glutathione-mediated changes in
productivity, photosynthetic efficiency,
osmolytes, and antioxidant capacity
of common beans (*Phaseolus vulgaris*)
grown under water deficit

Taia A. Abd El Mageed<fnref n="1" />, Wael Semida<fnref n="2" />, Khoulood A. Hemida<fnref n="3" />,
Mohammed A.H. Gyushi<fnref n="2" />, Mostafa M. Rady<fnref n="4" />, Abdelsattar Abdelkhalik<fnref n="2" />,
Othmane Merah<fnref n="5" />,<fnref n="6" />, Marian Brestic<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" />, Heba I. Mohamed<fnref n="9" />, Ayman El Sabagh<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" />
and Magdi T. Abdelhamid<fnref n="11" />,<fnref n="12" />

ABSTRACT

Globally, salinity and drought are severe abiotic stresses that presently threaten
vegetable production. This study investigates the potential exogenously-applied glu-
tathione (GSH) to relieve water deficits on *Phaseolus vulgaris* plants cultivated in saline
soil conditions (6.22 dS m⁻<fnref n="1" />) by evaluating agronomic, stability index of membrane,
water status, osmolytes, and antioxidant capacity responses. During two open field
growing seasons (2017 and 2018), foliar spraying of glutathione (GSH) at 0.5 (GSH₁)
or 1.0 (GSH₁) mM and three irrigation rates (I₁₀₀ = 100%, I₈₀ = 80% and I₆₀ =
60% of the crop evapotranspiration) were applied to common bean plants. Water
deficits significantly decreased common bean growth, green pods yield, integrity of the
membranes, plant water status, SPAD chlorophyll index, and photosynthetic capacity
(Fv/Fm, PI), while not improving the irrigation use efficiency (IUE) compared to full
irrigation. Foliar-applied GSH markedly lessened drought-induced damages to bean
plants, by enhancing the above variables. The integrative I₈₀ + GSH₁ or GSH₂ and
I₆₀ + GSH₁ or GSH₂ elevated the IUE and exceeded the full irrigation without GSH
application (I₁₀₀) treatment by 38% and 37%, and 33% and 28%, respectively. Drought
stress increased proline and total soluble sugars content while decreased the total free
amino acids content. However, GSH-supplemented drought-stressed plants mediated

<footnote n="1">¹ Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Laboratoire de Chimie Agro-industrielle, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ IUT A, Département Génie Biologique, Université Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III, Auch, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Plant Physiology, Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Institute of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, A. Hlinku 2, Nitra, Slovakia</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Biological and Geological Sciences Department, Faculty of Education, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr Al-Sheik, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Botany Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States of America</footnote>
further increases in all analyzed osmolytes contents. Exogenous GSH enhanced the common bean antioxidative machinery, being promoted the glutathione and ascorbic acid content as well as up-regulated the activity of superoxide dismutase, catalase, ascorbate peroxidase, and glutathione peroxidase. These findings demonstrate the efficacy of exogenous GSH in alleviating water deficit in bean plants cultivated in salty soil.

**Subjects** Agricultural Science, Plant Science, Soil Science

**Keywords** Antioxidant, Drought stress, Growth, Osmotic stress, Water status, Yield

INTRODUCTION

Plants are subjected to recurring abiotic stresses during their growth, threatening the production of vegetable crops. Water stress and salinity alone or in combination are the main yield-limiting factors (Awad et al., 2012; Semida et al., 2020). Forecasts based on the integration of crop growth models and climate change estimated further yield losses (Waqas et al., 2019), associated with population growth that would require an increase in food production, consequently increasing the demands for irrigated agriculture, which requires heightening the irrigation use efficiency (IUE) (Abdelkhalik et al., 2019c; Abd El-mageed et al., 2021).

Soil water deficit alters many vital processes and causes severe damage to the plant. A plant's primary response to soil water reduction is a decrease in cell turgor pressure, which causes osmotic stress, resulting in several cellular signaling pathways that disrupt different physio-biochemical activities in plant cells (Xiong & Zhu, 2002; Abdelkhalik et al., 2019c). Later, drought/osmotic stress leads to excessive accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS; e.g., OH-, H₂O₂, and O₂•−) produced from different plant organelles; mitochondria, chloroplasts, and peroxisomes (Rady et al., 2021; Abd El-mageed et al., 2022). Hyperproduction of ROS destructs the normal balance between ROS formation and scavenging that not only inhibits several enzymes activity but also triggers cellular oxidative damage like protein, DNA, and lipids even can lead to cell damage (Zhu et al., 2020; Abd El-mageed et al., 2022). Simultaneously, ROS provokes chlorophyll degradation and membrane lipid peroxidation, decreasing membrane stability, selectivity, and fluidity, and disturbing cell redox homeostasis (Rady, Taha & Kusvuran, 2018; Semida et al., 2021a). Under water stress, the lower tissue water content becomes limiting for physiological and biochemical processes in the plant (Tombesi et al., 2015; Abdelkhalik et al., 2019a). Besides stomatal closure is a primary factor that decreases photosynthesis, ROS generated in the chloroplasts can damage the photosynthetic pigments, thylakoid membrane, and enzymes, as well as decrease or inhibits the photosynthetic capacity of photosystem II (PSII) (Ma, Dias & Freitas, 2020; Semida et al., 2021b).

The plant has adapted several regulatory signaling mechanisms to withstand water stress, including activating the plant's defense system, which helps the plant modulate metabolism, maintain protective regimes, and redox homeostasis (Rady et al., 2019). The abundance of osmoprotectants in plant tissues involves osmotic adjustment, the maintenance of cell
turgor, and the control of water influx/efflux (Blum, 2017; Turner, 2018). Furthermore, increasing the activity of antioxidants both enzymatic and non-enzymatic helps to reduce ROS and protect membrane lipids from peroxidation under drought stress (Farooq et al., 2009; Semida, Hemida & Rady, 2018; Zhu et al., 2020). However, a continuous water deficit can trigger an imbalance among scavenge and the production of ROS, which inhibits the antioxidative machinery's scavenging action. In that case, the endogenous plant defense mechanisms are unable to completely protect plants from the harmful effects of drought stress, thus impairing plant growth and reducing yield (Pal et al., 2016; Rady et al., 2021). Therefore, exogenous use of auxiliary compounds such as antioxidative compounds or another effective approach to support plant defense system, allows plants to perform well under water deficit.

Glutathione (GSH) is a major free thiol tripeptide with a low molecular weight that acts as an antioxidant to relieve environmental stresses in several ways (Ding et al., 2016; Ashraf et al., 2019). GSH participates in the antioxidant defense, hormone or redox molecule signaling, transmembrane of amino acids transport, and detoxification of ROS, methylglyoxal, and xenobiotics (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017; Zhou et al., 2019). GSH is a small molecular weight of a thiol group that presents the GSH as a powerful ROS scavenger (Gill et al., 2017), it can also scavenge ROS indirectly through the AsA-GSH cycle, which removes harmful peroxides (Rady & Hemida, 2016; Hossain et al., 2017). GSH is an active redox compound that is typically found in reduced glutathione (GSH) form which may be oxidized by ROS to disulfide glutathione (GSSG) form that is recirculated to GSH by NADPH-dependent glutathione reductase (Noctor et al., 2012). The balance of GSH and GSSG in the cell is related to its redox state, in the sense that a higher GSH or GSH/GSSG ratio is important for many physiological mechanisms and regulates various adaptations to abiotic stress resilience (Ding et al., 2016; Hossain et al., 2017). Furthermore, GSH contributes to plasma membrane stability by reducing lipid peroxidation, as well as osmotic adjustment for abiotic stress tolerance (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017; Rehman et al., 2021). Exogenous GSH has been shown in recent studies to improve plant growth, leaf water status, and photosynthesis, and reduce oxidative damage indicators, along with up-regulated some osmolytes, the antioxidant capacity, and induced cellular redox hemostasis under abiotic stress such as drought stress (Nahar et al., 2015), high temperature (Ding et al., 2016) and salt stress (Rady & Hemida, 2016).

The *Phaseolus vulgaris*, a common bean, is among the world's largest legume crops, which are produced and consumed on a large scale (Biddle, 2017). The world's green pod production is approximately 27 million Mg, grown on an area of approximately 1.65 million ha, and Egypt is one of the world's major producers and exporters of green beans (FAOSTAT, 2020). Irrigation is critical at all growth stages of bean plants, which requires adequate water to achieve an important yield (Sezen et al., 2008). Furthermore, common beans are considered a highly salt-sensitive crop, being exhibit growth reduction and injury symptoms upon exposure to salinity (Maas & Grattan, 1999).

However, little information exists regarding the influence of the foliar application of antioxidative compounds like GSH on drought-stressed common bean plants cultivated in salt-affected soil in open field conditions. Therefore, the current research was intended
to look into the potential use of GSH to reduce the adverse consequences of water shortage on common beans. In this study, the potential changes in physio-biochemical attributes, osmolytes, and antioxidative molecules of *Phaseolus vulgaris* were examined under combined exogenously-applied GSH and water deficit. Furthermore, the expected enhancements in water status, membrane stability, photosynthetic efficiency, growth parameters, pod yield, and IUE of common bean induced by GSH under water deficits were assessed.

# MATERIAL AND METHODS

## Experimental field site

The field experiments were performed on a private farm in Fayoum governorate, Egypt, 29.5004 N, 30.8767 E, during the two seasons of 2017 and 2018. Before the start of each experiment, soil samples were collected to a depth of 25 cm from the experimental site and analyzed for physical and chemical properties (Table 1) according to Klute (1986) and Page, Miller & Keeney (1982). The average monthly climatic data of El-Fayoum during the study period (September -November) are presented in Table 2. The study area has a hyperarid climate as identified by the aridity index (Ponce, Pandey & Ercan, 2000).

## Irrigation applied (IA) and treatments

Every two days, the growing *Phaseolus vulgaris* plants were irrigated with varying amounts of irrigation water. The amount of irrigation applied (m³) to each experimental unit was calculated by using the following equation:

$$ \text{Irrigation applied} = \frac{A \times ET_c \times I_i \times Kr}{E_a \times 1,000 \times (1 - LR)} $$

where; A is the experimental unit area (m²), ETc is the crop evapotranspiration (mm day⁻¹), Ii is the intervals between irrigation events (day), Kr is the covering factor, Ea is the application efficiency (%), and LR is the leaching requirements.

The daily reference evapotranspiration; ET₀ (mm day⁻¹) was computed using the evaporation registered from class A pan (Eₚan) and appropriate pan coefficient (Kₚan) for the experimental area as follows:

$$ ET_0 = E_{pan} \times K_{pan} $$

The crop water evapotranspiration (ETC) was estimated using the crop coefficient according to the following equation:

$$ ET_c = ET_0 \times K_c $$

where ET₀ = the reference evapotranspiration (mm day⁻¹) and K_c = the crop coefficient. The duration of the initial, crop development, mid-season, and late-season stages were 15, 25, 25, and 10 days, respectively. The *Phaseolus vulgaris* K_c according to Allen et al. (1998) was 0.50, 1.05, and 0.90, corresponding to the initial, mid, and end stages, respectively.

In a preliminary pot experiment the GSH was foliar-applied with 0.5 and 1.0 mM at 25 days after sowing and applied again after 10 days. The spray solution was prepared
<table><caption>**Table 1** Some initial physico-chemical characteristics of the studied soil.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">EC (dS/m)</th><th rowspan="2">pH</th><th rowspan="2">OM %</th><th rowspan="2">CaCO<sub>3</sub></th><th colspan="3">Particle size distribution</th><th rowspan="2">Texture class</th><th rowspan="2">ρd g.cm<sup>-3</sup></th><th rowspan="2">K<sub>sat</sub> cm h<sup>-1</sup></th><th colspan="3">Soil moisture content at</th></tr><tr><th>Sand %</th><th>Silt %</th><th>Clay %</th><th>FC %</th><th>WP %</th><th>AW %</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.22</td><td>7.66</td><td>1.13</td><td>4.51</td><td>13.0</td><td>12.8</td><td>74.2</td><td>LS</td><td>1.58</td><td>2.10</td><td>21.03</td><td>10.55</td><td>10.48</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

EC, electrical conductivity; OM, Organic matter content %; LS, loamy sand; ρd, Bulk density; Ksat, Hydraulic conductivity; FC, Field capacity; WP, wilting point; AW, Available water.

<table><caption>**Table 2** Monthly weather data at Fayoum, Egypt as an average for 2017–2018.</caption><thead><tr><th>Month</th><th>T<sub>max</sub> (°C)</th><th><sup>a</sup>T<sub>min</sub> (°C)</th><th>T<sub>avg</sub> (°C)</th><th>RH<sub>avg</sub> (%)</th><th>U<sub>2</sub> ms<sup>-1</sup></th><th>ETo (mmd<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>September</td><td>38.3</td><td>23.6</td><td>30.95</td><td>37.0</td><td>2.1</td><td>5.85</td></tr><tr><td>October</td><td>34.0</td><td>22.4</td><td>28.2</td><td>40.0</td><td>1.95</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>November</td><td>27.8</td><td>15.4</td><td>21.6</td><td>41.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.15</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

Tmax, Tavg, and Tmin are average, maximum, and minimum temperatures, respectively.

RHavg, average relative humidity; U2, average wind speed; Ep, average of measured pan evaporation class A.

by dissolving GSH in distilled water with adding Tween-20 (0.1%, v/v) as a surfactant to increase its retention on the leaves, thus fast penetration through the leaves. For each experimental plot (9 m²), a volume of 9 L of spraying solution was specified per each application time. Foliar spraying GSH at the concentrations and times obtained from the initial pot experiment achieved the highest growth of green bean plants grown under three irrigation rates 100, 80, and 60% of ETc. For the current study, there were two factors including GSH (0, 0.5 mM = GSH1 and 1.0 mM = GSH2), and irrigation regimes as a percentage of the ETc (100% = I100, 80% = I80, and 60% = I60). Therefore, nine treatments were established as follows; I100 (full irrigation without GSH application), I80 (irrigation with 80% of the ETc without GSH application), I60 (irrigation with 60% of the ETc without GSH application), I100 + GSH1, I100 + GSH2, I80 + GSH1, I80 + GSH2, I60 + GSH1, and I60 + GSH2.

**Plant materials and experimental layout**

The experimental layout was a randomized complete block design with three replications. The total experimental included 27 plots; each one was approximately 9 m² (15 m in length × 0.6 m row width) each plot included 2 planting rows placed 30 cm apart with a distance of 10 cm between plants within rows. Two drip lines were placed 0.3 m apart in each elementary test plot. *Phaseolus vulgaris* (cv. Bronco) seeds were planted on 6 September and harvested on 28 November in both growing seasons. All treatments were separated and surrounded by a 1m non-irrigated area. Plants were adequately watered during the first irrigation. One week after complete germination, irrigation treatments were started. All experimental units received identical doses of N, P₂O₅, and K150 kg N ha⁻¹, 60 kg P ha⁻¹, and 70 kg ha⁻¹ orderly. The other cultural practices for commercial bean production were carried out according to the instructions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation.
## Growth and yield-related attributes

After 50 days of sowing in each season, three random plants from each experimental unit were taken to measure morphological characteristics, and another group of three plants was taken to determine physio-biochemical traits. The lengths of the shoots were measured on a meter scale, and the number of leaves per plant was counted. A digital planimeter (Planix 7, Tamaya Technics Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure the leaf area per plant. Plant shoots were weighed to determine their fresh weight before being oven dried at 70 °C until their weight stabilized. Green pods were collected at the harvest stage from all plants in each plot to determine the average number of pods per plant, green pod weight per plant, and green pod yield per hectare in a ton.

## Leaf relative water content, membrane stability, and irrigation use efficiency

The relative water content (%) in bean leaves were assessed (Osman & Rady, 2014). After excluding the midrib, 2-cm discs were taken and the fresh mass (FM) was weighed. Immediately, the discs were submerged in distilled water for 24 h, after which they were extracted and weighed to determine the saturated mass (SM). The dry mass of discs after dehydrating at 70 °C for 48 h was recorded. The RWC was calculated using the formula:

$$RWC(\%) = (FM - DM)/(SM - DM) \times 100.$$

Duplicate samples of fully-expanded fresh leaves tissue, each weighing 0.2 g were used to determine the stability index of the cellular membrane (MSI) (Abdelkhalik et al., 2019b). The first leaf sample was placed in a test tube with 10 ml of double-distilled water and heated in a water bath at 40 °C for 30 min. The electrical conductivity of the solution was measured and denoted a C1. The same previous steps were performed with the second leaf sample but the samples were heated at 100 °C for 10 min, and electric conductivity was measured and denoted a C2. The MSI was calculated as follows:

$$MSI(\%) = 1 - (C1/C2) \times 100.$$

Irrigation use efficiency (IUE) values were calculated for different treatments as kg green pods per cubic meter (m3) of applied water using the following equation (Jensen, 1983):

$$IUE = \text{Pods yield(kg ha}^{-1})/\text{water applied(m}^{3}\text{ha}^{-1}).$$

## Photosynthetic efficiency

Using a chlorophyll meter; SPAD-502 (Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) fully developed leaves were collected from the top of each plant to determine the relative chlorophyll content (SPAD value). The chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured with one leaf per plant on two different sunny days using a portable fluorometer (Handy PEA, Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Kings Lynn, UK). The maximum quantum yield (Fv/Fm) was calculated using the formula: $Fv/Fm = (Fm - F0)/Fm$ (Maxwell & Johnson, 2000). According to Clark et al. (2000), the photosynthetic performance index (PI) was determined.
## Quantification of osmoprotectants and non-enzymatic antioxidant contents

Free proline content was quantified using the rapid colorimetric method described by Bates, Waldren & Teare (1973). Rosen's (1957) method was used to determine the total free amino acid content of dry leaves. Leaf-soluble sugar content was determined after extraction with 96% (v/v) ethanol, as outlined by Irigoyen, Einerich & Sánchez-Díaz (1992). The extract was reacted with anthrone reagent, the obtained mix was boiled for 10 min. After cooling, the samples were read at 625 nm using a spectrophotometer (a Bausch and Lomb-2000).

Leaf ascorbic acid (AsA) content was extracted and quantified according to the methods of Kampfenkel, Van Montagu & Inzé (1995). To assay AsA content, a leaf sample of 1.0 g was homogenized and extracted with 5% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) with liquid N₂ then the mixture was centrifuged (15,600 × g, 4 °C, 5 min). 1.0 ml of the supernatant was carefully taken and placed in the vessel tube with 0.5% (v/v) nethylmaleimide, 10 mM DTT, 10% (w/v) TCA, 4% (v/v) 2,2'-dipyridyl, 42% (v/v) H₃PO₄, 3% (w/v) FeCl₃, in addition to 0.2 M phosphate buffer with pH 7.4. For GSH contents determination by Griffith (1980), homogenization of fresh leaf tissue (50 mg) was exercised in two mL of 2% (v/v) metaphosphoric acid, and centrifugation was then applied at 17,000 × g for 10 min. The supernatant was neutralized with sodium citrate of 10% (w/v). Assessments of 3 replicates were made for each sample. A composition of 700 µL of 0.3 mM NADPH, 100 µL of 6 mM 5,50-dithiol-bis-2- nitro benzoic acid, 100 µL distilled water, and 100 µL of the extract was of each assay (1.0 mL) that was stabilized at 25 °C for 3–4 min, and GSH reductase (10 µL of 50 units mL⁻¹) was then added and the absorbances were read at 412 nm to calculate GSH contents from a standard curve.

## Enzymatic antioxidant assay

For obtaining the enzyme extracts, 200 mg freeze-fresh leaf was homogenized in a cold mortar with 2 ml of extraction buffer prepared from potassium phosphate buffer (100 mM, pH 7.0) containing 0.1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Bradford, 1976). For assaying the APX activity (µmol H₂O₂ min⁻¹ g⁻¹ protein) (Nakano & Asada, 1981), 2 mM AsA was added to the extraction buffer. The homogenate was filtered and then centrifuged at 12,000 × g for 15 min. All steps were completed under 4 °C. The mixture (2 ml) was spotted for 2 min at 290 nm with a spectrophotometer measuring the AsA oxidation, and an extinction coefficient of 2.8 mM⁻¹ cm⁻¹ was used. The activity (µmol H₂O₂ min⁻¹ g⁻¹ protein) of CAT (EC 1.11.1.6) was quantified as described by Havir & McHale (1987), by measuring the decrease in absorbance read at 240 nm caused by H₂O₂ breakdown (ε = 36 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹). The activity (U mg⁻¹ protein) of SOD (EC 1.15.1.1) was measured by determining its ability to inhibit nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) photochemical decrement (Beauchamp & Fridovich, 1971). The enzyme amount required to inhibit half of the NBT photoreduction rate (%) was assigned as one unit of SOD activity. As outlined by Martinez et al. (2018) the GPX activity was quantified with a glutathione peroxidase assay kit (Ref. ab102530; Abcam, Cambridge, UK) measuring the reduction of NADPH at 340 nm, and extinction coefficient of 6.22 mM⁻¹ cm⁻¹ was used.
## Statistical analysis

Data from both field experimental seasons were analyzed using GenStat 19th Edition (VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK). Differences between the treatments were compared using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at *P* ≤ 0.05.

## RESULTS

### Growth characteristics and green pods yield

Results in Table 3 exhibited that deficit irrigation (I<sub>80</sub> or I<sub>60</sub>) unfavorable affected all growth parameters; i.e., shoot length, plant leaf area, the number of leaves per plant, and shoot dry weight plant<sup>-1</sup>. However, foliar-applied GSH (0.5 or 1.0 mM) corrected this growth inhibition and increased all growth parameters compared to deficit irrigation treatment (I<sub>80</sub>, or I<sub>60</sub>) in both seasons. Generally, the maximum values of all analyzed growth traits were recorded under I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> treatment. However, foliar-applied GSH (0.5 mM) to 20% water-stressed common bean plants increased the aforementioned growth parameters and registered similar or higher values than fully irrigation plants untreated with GSH (I<sub>100</sub> treatment).

In both seasons, the gradual reduction of irrigation from 100% (I<sub>100</sub>) to 60% (I<sub>60</sub>) of ETc significantly decreased gradually the number of pods (up to 61%), green pods weight (up to 48%), and green pods yield ha<sup>-1</sup> (up to 47%) (Table 4). However, exogenously-applied GSH to common bean plants grown under water stress recovered the yield losses by inducing considerable increases in the number of pods, green pods weight, and green pods yield compared to the respective control. Foliar spraying bean plants grown under 20% water deficit with GSH (0.5 mM) increased the abovementioned traits by 38% and 37%, 24% and 23%, and 24% and 18% (seasons average) respectively, when compared with the corresponding control, with similar values as those observed under full irrigation (I<sub>100</sub>). However, integrative I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> or GSH<sub>2</sub> elevated the green pod's yield and its component compared to the corresponding control but did not reach those observed under optimum irrigation without GSH application (I<sub>100</sub>).

### Membrane integrity, water status, and irrigation use efficiency

As presented in Table 5, deficit irrigation (I<sub>80</sub> and I<sub>60</sub>) induced stress in bean plants, being reduced the membrane stability index (MSI) by 14% and 40% and leaf relative water contents (RWC) by 6% and 17% (seasons average) respectively, compared to well-watered plants without application of GSH (I<sub>100</sub>). Nevertheless, GSH supplementation attenuated the water deficit-induced damages as the same values of MSI and RWC were observed under fully irrigated plants untreated with GSH (I<sub>100</sub>). Reducing irrigation by up to 60% of ETc markedly decreased the irrigation use efficiency (IUE) by 13% in comparison with full irrigation (I<sub>100</sub>). However, combined externally applied GSH and water deficit substantially elevated the IUE. The integrative I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> or GSH<sub>2</sub> and I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> or GSH<sub>2</sub> exceeded the full irrigation without GSH application (I<sub>100</sub>) treatment by 38% and 37%, and 33% and 28% (seasons average) respectively.
<table><caption>**Table 3** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on vegetative growth characteristics of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatment</th><th colspan="2">Shoot length (cm)</th><th colspan="2">Number of leaves plant<sup>-1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Leaf area plant<sup>-1</sup> (dm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th colspan="2">Shoot dry weight plant<sup>-1</sup> (g)</th></tr><tr><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub></td><td>79.3b</td><td>78.3c</td><td>27.0a</td><td>29.3a</td><td>20.7a</td><td>22.5a</td><td>22.8a</td><td>20.4a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub></td><td>78.3b</td><td>76.3cd</td><td>23.7b</td><td>27.0b</td><td>18.3bc</td><td>20.0b</td><td>19.3b</td><td>18.6b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub></td><td>68.3d</td><td>59.7e</td><td>18.3c</td><td>20.0d</td><td>16.3d</td><td>12.9d</td><td>13.2c</td><td>16.6c</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>86.0a</td><td>87.0a</td><td>27.0a</td><td>28.3a</td><td>21.0a</td><td>23.8a</td><td>23.4a</td><td>21.4a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>74.7bc</td><td>80.3bc</td><td>27.3a</td><td>28.0a</td><td>20.6a</td><td>22.9a</td><td>22.2a</td><td>20.0a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>78.0b</td><td>78.0c</td><td>27.0a</td><td>29.0a</td><td>20.3a</td><td>22.4a</td><td>22.8a</td><td>18.6b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>75.0b</td><td>80.3bc</td><td>26.3a</td><td>29.0a</td><td>20.0ab</td><td>22.6a</td><td>22.0a</td><td>20.4a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>70.0cd</td><td>71.3d</td><td>22.3b</td><td>24.0c</td><td>19.5ab</td><td>20.4b</td><td>23.2a</td><td>19.9a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>72.0cd</td><td>63.0e</td><td>22.7b</td><td>23.7d</td><td>17.1cd</td><td>15.5c</td><td>19.8b</td><td>16.7c</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

\# Mean values in each column followed by a different lower-case-letter are significantly different by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at $P \le 0.05$.

$I_{100}$, irrigation with 100% of ETC; $I_{80}$, irrigation with 80% of ETC; $I_{60}$, irrigation with 60% of ETC.

<table><caption>**Table 4** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on the productivity of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatment</th><th colspan="2">Number of pods plant<sup>-1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Green pods weight plant<sup>-1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Green pods yield (ton ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr><tr><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub></td><td>26.7 a</td><td>29.3a</td><td>49.0a</td><td>51.7a</td><td>9.61a</td><td>10.15a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub></td><td>19.0b</td><td>22.3b</td><td>40.7b</td><td>41.0b</td><td>8.63b</td><td>9.04b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub></td><td>10.7c</td><td>11.0c</td><td>25.8e</td><td>26.7d</td><td>4.87c</td><td>5.65d</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>27.0a</td><td>29.7a</td><td>50.7a</td><td>51.1a</td><td>9.73a</td><td>11.02a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>28.3a</td><td>29.3a</td><td>49.7a</td><td>50.7a</td><td>9.73a</td><td>10.70a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>27.7a</td><td>28.9a</td><td>50.3a</td><td>51.3a</td><td>10.87a</td><td>10.97a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>27.3a</td><td>29.0a</td><td>49.7a</td><td>51.0a</td><td>9.93a</td><td>11.00a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>19.0b</td><td>22.3b</td><td>36.0c</td><td>36.3c</td><td>8.20b</td><td>8.99b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>19.0b</td><td>21.7b</td><td>31.7d</td><td>37.0c</td><td>7.97b</td><td>8.02c</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

\* Mean values in each column followed by a different lower-case-letter are significantly different by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at $P \le 0.05$.

$I_{100}$, irrigation with 100% of ETC; $I_{80}$, irrigation with 80% of ETC; $I_{60}$, irrigation with 60% of ETC.

## Chlorophyll a fluorescence and SPAD value

Data of chlorophyll fluorescence (i.e., Fv/Fm and PI) and SPAD chlorophyll content of common bean plants in response to the application of GSH and water deficits are shown in Table 6. Compared to fully irrigated plants ($I_{100}$), common bean plants subjected to water deficits ($I_{80}$ and $I_{60}$) exhibited lower values of Fv/Fm (by 3% and 7%), PI (24% and 42%), and SPAD value (by 29% and 47%) (seasons average), respectively. However, foliage spraying GSH was observed to adjust the drought-impacted Fv/Fm, PI, and SPAD values of bean plants. In this respect, spraying with 0.5 or 1 mM GSH to water-stressed bean plants at 20% showed similar values of the SPAD value, Fv/Fm, and PI to bean plants subjected to full irrigation without GSH application ($I_{100}$).
<table><caption>**Table 5** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on membrane stability index (MSI), relative water content (RWC) and irrigation use efficiency (IUE) of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatment</th><th colspan="2">MSI (%)</th><th colspan="2">RWC (%)</th><th colspan="2">IUE (kg pods m<sup>-3</sup> of water)</th></tr><tr><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub></td><td>52.3<sup>a</sup></td><td>57.9a</td><td>87.9a</td><td>89.8a</td><td>2.57d</td><td>3.35de</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub></td><td>46.4b</td><td>47.8b</td><td>83.6b</td><td>84.1b</td><td>2.90cd</td><td>3.76c</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub></td><td>30.6d</td><td>36.0d</td><td>72.7c</td><td>75.2c</td><td>2.08e</td><td>3.14e</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>53.7a</td><td>58.6a</td><td>88.3a</td><td>89.7a</td><td>2.78cd</td><td>3.74c</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>52.8a</td><td>57.4a</td><td>88.5a</td><td>88.9a</td><td>2.78cd</td><td>3.57cd</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>52.2a</td><td>57.2a</td><td>87.2a</td><td>88.3a</td><td>3.88a</td><td>4.16b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>51.9a</td><td>56.7a</td><td>86.1a</td><td>88.0a</td><td>3.55ab</td><td>4.58a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>46.3b</td><td>47.5b</td><td>86.9a</td><td>84.1b</td><td>3.43b</td><td>4.44ab</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>40.7c</td><td>42.7c</td><td>83.1b</td><td>83.9b</td><td>3.13bc</td><td>4.52a</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

*Mean values in each column followed by a different lower-case-letter are significantly different by Tukey bc Honest Significant difference test at $P \le 0.05$.

I<sub>100</sub>, irrigation with 100% of ETC; I<sub>80</sub>, irrigation with 80% of ETC; I<sub>60</sub>, irrigation with 60% of ETC.

<table><caption>**Table 6** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on chlorophyll a fluorescence and relative chlorophyll content (SPAD value) of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatment</th><th colspan="2">Fv/Fm</th><th colspan="2">PI</th><th colspan="2">SPAD chlorophyll</th></tr><tr><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th><th>SI</th><th>SII</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub></td><td>0.81<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.82a</td><td>2.41b</td><td>2.54a</td><td>35.3a</td><td>35.4a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub></td><td>0.79b</td><td>0.79c</td><td>1.60c</td><td>2.17b</td><td>25.1c</td><td>25.2c</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub></td><td>0.76c</td><td>0.76d</td><td>1.15d</td><td>1.72c</td><td>16.8d</td><td>20.5d</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>0.82a</td><td>0.82a</td><td>2.41b</td><td>2.58a</td><td>37.3a</td><td>36.7a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>100</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.82a</td><td>0.83a</td><td>2.76a</td><td>2.64a</td><td>35.9a</td><td>36.2a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>0.81a</td><td>0.82a</td><td>2.42b</td><td>2.51a</td><td>34.1a</td><td>34.7a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.82a</td><td>0.82a</td><td>2.41b</td><td>2.55a</td><td>34.2a</td><td>34.5a</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub></td><td>0.81a</td><td>0.80bc</td><td>1.62c</td><td>2.18b</td><td>31.0b</td><td>29.4b</td></tr><tr><td>I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>2</sub></td><td>0.80ab</td><td>0.79c</td><td>1.20d</td><td>2.17b</td><td>31.1b</td><td>28.7b</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Notes.**

*Mean values in each column followed by a different lower-case-letter are significantly different by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at $P \le 0.05$.

I<sub>100</sub>, irrigation with 100% of ETC; I<sub>80</sub>, irrigation with 80% of ETC; I<sub>60</sub>, irrigation with 60% of ETC.

## Plant defense system: osmolytes and antioxidants

Figures 1 and 2 show that the contents of total soluble sugars, free proline, AsA, and GSH (not significant) increased in *Phaseolus vulgaris* leaves in response to the water deficit exposure (I<sub>80</sub> and I<sub>60</sub>), whereas the contents of total free amino acids decreased (I<sub>100</sub>). Under water deficits, exogenous GSH-mediated further increases in total free amino acids, free proline, and total soluble sugars, as well as AsA and GSH compared to stressed plants untreated with GSH (I<sub>80</sub> and I<sub>60</sub>). In this regard, the maximum values of free proline, AsA, and GSH corresponded with the integrative I<sub>60</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> treatment while the integrative I<sub>80</sub> + GSH<sub>1</sub> or GSH<sub>2</sub> produced the highest total soluble sugars and total free amino acids levels.

Drought stress (I<sub>80</sub> and I<sub>60</sub>) increased significantly the activities of antioxidant enzymes in terms of SOD, CAT, APX, and GPX in common bean plants compared to normal
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on the contents of free proline (A), total free amino acids (TFAA) (B), and total soluble sugars (TSS) (C) of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels (seasons average). The vertical bar represents the standard error. Different letters on the bar indicate a significant difference by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at *P* ≤ 0.05.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15343/fig-1

conditions ($I_{100}$) as shown in Fig. 3. The aforementioned enzymes activities were at lower level corresponding to the $I_{100}$, $I_{100} + \text{GSH}_1$, or $I_{100} + \text{GSH}_2$ treatments. Nonetheless, exogenous GSH to water-stressed *Phaseolus vulgaris* induced additional increases in the antioxidative compounds. The magnitude of antioxidant enzyme activity response was more pronounced with integrative $I_{60} + \text{GSH}_1$ treatment, followed by integrative $I_{60} + \text{GSH}_1$, and $I_{80} + \text{GSH}_1$ or $\text{GH}_2$ treatments.

DISCUSSION

As expected, decreasing soil water content under high soil salinity conditions (6.22 dS m⁻¹; Table 1) significantly reduced bean plant growth (i.e., shoot height, leaf area, number of leaves, and dry biomass), pods yield, and the IUE (Tables 3–5). Environmental stresses; drought and salinity mediate the loss of cell turgor and impede cell division and elongation, consequently diminishing bean growth and development (Taiz & Zeiger, 2010; Dawood, Abdelhamid & Schmidhalter, 2014; Fahad et al., 2017). However, externally-applied GSH
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on the contents of ascorbic acid (AsA) (A) and glutathione (GSH) (B) of common beans plants grown under different irrigation levels (seasons average). The vertical bar represents the standard error. Different letters on the bar indicate a significant difference by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at *P* ≤ 0.05.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15343/fig-2

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Effect of exogenous spray applications of glutathione (GSH; 0.5 or 1.0 mM) on the activities antioxidant enzymes; superoxide dismutase (SOD) (A), catalase (CAT) (B), ascorbate peroxidase (APX) (C), and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) (D) of common beans plan. The vertical bar represents the standard error. Different letters on the bar indicate a significant difference by Tukey's Honest Significant Difference test at *P* ≤ 0.05.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15343/fig-3
ameliorated drought-induced damage to bean plants, showing that it increased their growth, dry matter, and productivity (yield and IUE) (Tables 3–5) due to increased membrane integrity, tissue water content, and photosynthetic efficiency (Tables 4–6). The application of GSH to water-stressed plants at 20%, yielded better results, whereas when applied to severe water deficit (60% of ETc) improved growth characteristics but not to the same extent as observed under fully irrigated plants. Growth and productivity restoration of water-stressed bean plants by GSH application demonstrated that GSH may involve in mechanisms for drought stress tolerance. GSH is thought to have growth-regulating properties, as increased endogenous GSH promotes cell division in the apical meristem of the root (Vernoux et al., 2000; Hossain et al., 2017), this root elongation is a key morphological adaptation to water deficit (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017).

Exogenous GSH increased yield-linked parameters, which could be consequent to the increase of plant leaf area, as well as higher photosynthetic pigments content. Both of these characteristics contribute to increased photosynthetic efficiency and sink capability, which is met by a steady supply of metabolites necessary for the development of bean pods (Thomas & Howarth, 2000; Rehman et al., 2021). Our results are consistent with a previous study (Al-Elwany et al., 2020), which found that foliarly applied GSH increased leaf number, leaf area, shoot dry weight, fruit yield and water use efficiency of chili pepper under water deficits.

Soil water deficit and salinity stress provoke lower cell turgor pressure and soil water potential, increasingly less available water and nutrients acquisition by the plant, thus decreasing the leaf's RWC (Table 5) (Mahajan & Tuteja, 2005; Giménez, Gallardo & Thompson, 2013; Sarker & Oba, 2018). This water stress within the membrane lipid bilayer may result in the degradation of the membrane protein by ROS activity which triggers lipid peroxidation and loss of membrane integrity (Table 5) or even induces complete membrane denaturation (Mahajan & Tuteja, 2005; Abdelkhalik et al., 2020). However, the negative impacts of decreased RWC and increased cell membranes injured by drought stress were ameliorated in GSH-treated bean plants under water deficit. Therefore, fully irrigated or water-stressed plants at 20% treated with GSH achieved the highest RWC and MSI followed by integrative $I_{60} + GSH_1$ or $GH_2$. High endogenous GSH levels were linked to the regulation of leaf RWC, suggesting that GSH can play a role in leaf rolling control induced by drought stress (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017). Exogenous GSH has been shown to improve RWC, MSI, and electrolyte leakage in similar studies (Sohag et al., 2020; Rehman et al., 2021). These improvements in water status and stable cell membrane could be attributed to foliar-applied GSH increased osmolytes accumulation (Fig. 1), which improves osmotic adjustment for maintaining turgor pressure and increases water diffusion into the cell while also increasing antioxidant activities (Figs. 2 and 3) for ROS detoxification and protecting cell membranes (Nahar et al., 2015; Pei et al., 2019; Rehman et al., 2021). These findings highlight the role of GSH in stabilizing membrane integrity for normal functions and increasing tissue water content as metabolically available water, allowing plants to maintain physiological and metabolism activities (Abid et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2020).
Water deficits reduced the relative chlorophyll content and photosynthetic capacity of the PSII including Fv/Fm and PI. This could be attributed to reduced essential nutrient uptake by roots that are necessary for chlorophyll biosynthesis (Etienne et al., 2018; Semida et al., 2021b), concomitant with inhibition of D1 protein synthesis and degradation of the thylakoid membrane owing to oxidative stress (Tian et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018), indicating inhibition of electron transport chain and the light-harvesting complex of PSII in drought-stressed common bean plants. Nevertheless, GSH-mediated recovery of the relative chlorophyll content and photosynthetic capacity of common bean plants, showed that GSH increased the SPAD chlorophyll, maximal quantity yield (Fv/Fm), and the performance index (PI) of the PSII (Table 6). These findings may be linked to improving plant water status (RWC) and cell membrane stability index (MSI, Table 5) by exogenous GSH for restoring the damaged chloroplast and increasing chlorophyll contents (Nahar et al., 2015; Al-Elwany et al., 2020). Besides the role of GSH in scavenging ROS via the AsA-GSH cycle, GSH-mediated increases in the antioxidative compounds; enzymatic and non-enzymatic (Figs. 2 and 3) that participated in ROS scavenging and inhibition of chlorophyll degradation (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017; Hossain et al., 2017) thus increasing the photosynthetic efficiency. The increment in root growth and biomass has been linked to the up-regulation of cysteine and GSH concentrations to contract water stress in maize plants (Ahmad et al., 2016), which may increase water and element uptake and enhance photosynthetic capacity.

In osmotically-stressed common bean plants, clear increases in osmolytes accumulation; total free amino acids, proline, and total soluble sugars were observed in GSH-treated plants. These osmoprotectants might help in water stress tolerance in bean plants by enhancing osmotic adjustment for maintaining cell turgor, protecting cell membranes and proteins against ROS-induced oxidative damage, thus recovering the cellular functions and metabolism as adaptive mechanisms under stressors (Turner, 2018; Sharma et al., 2019). In previous researches, exogenous GSH was found to up-regulate the accumulation of osmolytes such as proline in mung beans grown under high-temperature stress (Nahar et al., 2015), proline and soluble sugars in chili pepper grown under water stress (Al-Elwany et al., 2020). Also, higher osmolytes concentration after foliar spraying GSH may have a valuable role in ameliorating oxidative damage and acting as an osmoprotectant to prevent water loss and increase the RWC (Nahar et al., 2015; Turner, 2018).

Antioxidant defense system components help to lessen oxidative damage and confer drought stress tolerance in plants. Among them, GSH is one of the most remarkable antioxidants, which forms a crucial portion of the AsA-GSH cycle (Bartoli et al., 2017; Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017). Common bean plants exposed to water deficits exhibited higher GSH and AsA contents than those well-watered. However, exogenous GSH application mediated further elevation in AsA and GSH content in drought-stressed plants (especially at severe levels), indicating an enhancement in the AsA-GSH cycle, and up-regulation associated enzymes activity as an effective pathway to ameliorate the oxidative damage in cellular organelles under abiotic stress (Hasanuzzaman et al., 2019; Semida et al., 2021a). GSH and AsA predominately quench O₂ directly or by enzyme catalysis (Sarker & Oba, 2018). GSH and AsA have high redox potentials, and interactions with a variety
of components and pathways to maintain a normally reduced state. As a result, AsA and GSH correlate with the activity of various enzymes (DHAR, GR and MDHAR, and APX) during the ROS detoxification process by donating electrons or reducing equivalents (Foyer & Noctor, 2011; Hasanuzzaman et al., 2019). Supplementation of GSH to water-stressed mung bean markedly decreased the indicators of oxidative stress; H₂O₂, OH⁻, O₂•⁻⁻, and lipid peroxidation, showing the effective role of GSH in reducing oxidative damage (Nahar et al., 2015).

Furthermore, our results exhibited that foliar-applied GSH elevated the enzymatic antioxidant; SOD, CAT, APX, and GPX capacity in leaves of *Phaseolus vulgaris* plants grown under water deficit (Fig. 3), which is paramount in the removal of ROS in plant tissues. The balance among SOD and APX or CAT activities in the plant cell is critical to determine the stable state of the level of H₂O₂ and O₂•⁻⁻ to inhibit the forming of the highly toxic OH⁻ (Mittler, 2002). The SOD is found in nearly all tissues and serves as the primary line of defense in the ROS detoxification approach by disputing the O₂•⁻⁻ into O₂ and H₂O₂. After that, the CAT dismutase the H₂O₂ to H₂O during stress, or the H₂O₂ enters the AsA-GSH cycle, where the APX utilizes the AsA as an electron donor to convert H₂O₂ to H₂O (Das & Roychoudhury, 2014; Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017). Also, GPX used the GSH as a substrate during scavenging H₂O₂ and lipid hydroperoxides (Noctor et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2019), thus increasing the endogenous GSH associated with up-regulation of the activity of GPX may help to scavenge ROS in bean plants under water stress.

In the present study, it was observed that the higher concentration of glutathione led to similar or lower values than the lower concentration. The response of plants to different GSH concentrations varies depending on the crop (Hasanuzzaman, Nahar & Anee, 2017). In stress responses to GSH, an initial response phase (change in GSH redox state) will be followed by an acclimatization phase in which a new steady state is established (increase GSH level and related enzymes activity or/and more reduced GSH redox state). Alternately, system degradation will occur if successful acclimatization is not accomplished (Tausz, Šircelj & Grill, 2004). According to various studies, GSH levels may increase, not change, or decrease under stress. GSH redox potential, which depends on both the GSH/GSSG ratio and GSH concentration, and the redox state of GSH/GSSG may change to become more oxidized, more reduced, or not change at all (Dorion, Ouellet & Rivoal, 2021; Ito & Ohkama-Ohtsu, 2023). Indeed, further investigations with more related measurements are needed to determine the exact reasons for the difference of some parameters under different GSH concentrations. Externally-applied GSH alleviated the water stress (especially at a moderate level) on bean plants grown under salt-affected soil conditions, while under acute water stress improved to some extent the growth and productivity of bean plants.

## CONCLUSIONS

In summary, reducing irrigation to common bean plants under moderate soil salinity conditions decreased the leaf water content, membrane integrity, SPAD chlorophyll, and photosynthetic efficiency of the PSII, resulting in reduced growth and pods yield while
not improving the irrigation use efficiency. On the other hand, exogenously applied GSH mitigated the adverse effects of deficit irrigation on common beans, GSH-directed improvements in the growth, yield, and physio-biochemical properties of bean plants. The relative water content, membrane stability, and photosynthetic efficiency of the PSII were increased in water-stressed bean plants by GSH application. GSH-induced drought stresses tolerance by up-regulating total free amino acids, free proline, and total soluble sugars, as well as AsA and GSH and enzymatic antioxidants (APX, CAT, SOD, and GPX) for osmotic adjustment and stabilizing membrane integrity of bean plants. The integrative I₈₀ + GSH₁ or GH₂ were more pronounced, recording similar or higher values than well-watered plants untreated with GSH(I₁₀₀). Therefore, integrating GSH and water deficit is recommended for future application in order to improve *Phaseolus vulgaris* performance under soil salinity conditions.

**ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS**

**Funding**

This study was a portion of Research Project No. 11030129 corroborative by the National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Grant Disclosures**

The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt: 11030129.

**Competing Interests**

Magdi Abdelhamid & Othmane Merah are Academic Editors for PeerJ.

**Author Contributions**

* Taia A. Abd El Mageed conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Wael Semida conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Khoulood A. Hemida conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Mohammed A.H. Gyushi conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Mostafa M. Rady conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Abdelsattar Abdelkhalik conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Othmane Merah analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Marian Brestic analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
* Heba I. Mohamed analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Ayman El Sabagh analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Magdi T. Abdelhamid conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

## Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data are available in the Supplemental File.

## Supplemental Information

Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15343#supplemental-information.

## REFERENCES

Abd El-mageed TA, Abdelkhalik A, Abd El-Mageed SA, Semida WM. 2021. Co-composted poultry litter biochar enhanced soil quality and eggplant productivity under different irrigation regimes. *Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition* 2021(3):1917–1933 DOI 10.1007/s42729-021-00490-4.

Abd El-mageed TA, Gyushi MAH, Hemida KA, El-Saadony MT, Abd El-Mageed SA, Abdalla H, AbuQamar SF, El-Tarabily KA, Abdelkhalik A. 2022. Coap-plication of effective microorganisms and nanomagnesium boosts the defenses against salt stress in *Ipomoea batatas*. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 13:883274 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2022.883274.

Abdelkhalik A, Pascual B, Nájera I, Baixauli C, Pascual-Seva N. 2019c. Deficit irrigation as a sustainable practice in improving irrigation water use efficiency in cauliflower under Mediterranean conditions. *Agronomy* 9:732 DOI 10.3390/agronomy9110732.

Abdelkhalik A, Pascual B, Nájera I, Domene MA, Baixauli C, Pascual-Seva N. 2020. Effects of deficit irrigation on the yield and irrigation water use efficiency of drip-irrigated sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) under Mediterranean conditions. *Irrigation Science* 38:89–104 DOI 10.1007/s00271-019-00655-1.

Abdelkhalik A, Pascual-Seva N, Nájera I, Giner A, Baixauli C, Pascual B. 2019b. Yield response of seedless watermelon to different drip irrigation strategies under Mediterranean conditions. *Agricultural Water Management* 212:99–110 DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.044.

Abdelkhalik A, Pascual-Seva N, Nájera I, MÁ Domene, Baixauli C, Pascual B. 2019a. Effect of deficit irrigation on the productive response of drip-irrigated onion (Allium cepa L.) in mediterranean conditions. *The Horticulture Journal* 88:488–498 DOI 10.2503/hortj.UTD-081.

Abid M, Ali S, Qi LK, Zahoor R, Tian Z, Jiang D, Snider JL, Dai T. 2018. Physiological and biochemical changes during drought and recovery periods at tillering
and jointing stages in wheat (*Triticum aestivum* L.). *Scientific Reports* 8:1–15 DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-21441-7.

**Ahmad N, Malagoli M, Wirtz M, Hell R. 2016.** Drought stress in maize causes differential acclimation responses of glutathione and sulfur metabolism in leaves and roots. *BMC Plant Biology* 16:1–15 DOI 10.1186/s12870-016-0940-z.

**Al-Elwany OAAI, Mohamed GF, Abdurrahman HA, Rady MM, Latef AAA. 2020.** Exogenous glutathione-mediated tolerance to deficit irrigation in salt-affected *Capsicum frutescence* (L.) plants is connected with higher antioxidant content and ionic homeostasis. *Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca* 48:1957–1979.

**Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. 1998.** FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 - Crop Evapotranspiration.

**Ashraf MA, Riaz M, Arif MS, Rasheed R, Iqbal M, Hussain I, Mubarik MS. 2019.** The role of non-enzymatic antioxidants in improving abiotic stress tolerance in plants. In: *Plant tolerance to environmental stress*. CRC Press, 129–144.

**Awad NM, Turky AS, Abdelhamid MT, Attia M. 2012.** Ameliorate of environmental salt stress on the growth of the growth of *Zea mays* L. plants by exopolysaccharides producing bacteria. *Journal of Applied Sciences Research* 8:2033–2044.

**Bartoli CG, Buet A, Grozeff GGergoff, Galatro A, Simontacchi M. 2017.** Ascorbate-glutathione cycle and biotic stress tolerance in plants. In: Hossain MA, Munné-Bosch S, Burritt DJ, Diaz-Vivancos P, Fujita M, Lorence A, eds. *Ascorbic acid in plant growth, development and stress tolerance*. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 177–200 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-74057-7_7.

**Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID. 1973.** Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. *Plant and Soil* 207:205–207.

**Beauchamp C, Fridovich I. 1971.** Superoxide dismutase: improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. *Analytical Biochemistry* 44:276–287 DOI 10.1016/0003-2697(71)90370-8.

**Biddle AJ. 2017.** Harvesting, nutritional value and uses. In: *Crop production science in horticulture*. CABI International DOI 10.1079/9781780640914.0140.

**Blum A. 2017.** Osmotic adjustment is a prime drought stress adaptive engine in support of plant production. *Plant Cell and Environment* 40:4–10 DOI 10.1111/pce.12800.

**Bradford MM. 1976.** A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. *Analytical Biochemistry* 72:248–254 DOI 10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3.

**Clark AJ, Landolt W, Bucher JB, Strasser RJ. 2000.** Beech (*Fagus sylvatica*) response to ozone exposure assessed with a chlorophyll a fluorescence performance index. *Environmental Pollution* 109:501–507 DOI 10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00053-1.

**Das K, Roychoudhury A. 2014.** Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. *Frontiers in Environmental Science* 2:1–13 DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00053.

**Dawood MG, Abdelhamid MT, Schmidhalter U. 2014.** Potassium fertiliser enhances the salt-tolerance of common bean (*Phaseolus vulgaris* L.). *Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology* 89:185–192 DOI 10.1080/14620316.2014.11513067.
**Ding X, Jiang Y, He L, Zhou Q, Yu J, Hui D, Huang D. 2016.** Exogenous glutathione improves high root-zone temperature tolerance by modulating photosynthesis, antioxidant and osmolytes systems in cucumber seedlings. *Scientific Reports* **6**:1–12 DOI 10.1038/srep35424.

**Dorion S, Ouellet JC, Rivoal J. 2021.** Glutathione metabolism in plants under stress: beyond reactive oxygen species detoxification. *Metabolites* **11**(9):641 DOI 10.3390/metabo11090641.

**Etienne P, Diquelou S, Prudent M, Salon C, Maillard A, Ourry A. 2018.** Macro and micronutrient storage in plants and their remobilization when facing scarcity: the case of drought. *Agriculture* **8**(1):14 DOI 10.3390/agriculture8010014.

**Fahad S, Bajwa AA, Nazir U, Anjum SA, Farooq A, Zohaib A, Sadia S, Nasim W, Adkins S, Saud S, Ihsan MZ, Alharby H, Wu C, Wang D, Huang J. 2017.** Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. *Frontiers in Plant Science* **8**:1–16 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.01147.

**FAOSTAT. 2020.** Food and agriculture organization of the united nations. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 02 September 2022).

**Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA. 2009.** Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* **29**:185–212 DOI 10.1051/agro:2008021.

**Foyer CH, Noctor G. 2011.** Ascorbate and glutathione: the heart of the redox hub. *Plant Physiology* **155**:2–18 DOI 10.1104/pp.110.167569.

**Gill RA, Ali B, Yang S, Tong C, Islam F, Gill MB, Mwamba TM, Ali S, Mao B, Liu S, Zhou W. 2017.** Reduced glutathione mediates pheno-ultrastructure, kinome and transportome in chromium-induced Brassica napus L. *Frontiers in Plant Science* **8**:1–24 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.02037.

**Giménez C, Gallardo M, Thompson RB. 2013.** Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. In: *Plant-water relations. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences*. Elsevier, 1–8 DOI 10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.05257-x.

**Griffith W. 1980.** Determination of glutathione and glutathione disulfide using glutathione reductase and 2-vinylpyridine. *Analytical Biochemistry* **106**(1):207–212.

**Hasanuzzaman M, Borhannuddin Bhuyan MHM, Anee TI, Parvin K, Nahar K, Mahmud JAI, Fujita M. 2019.** Regulation of ascorbate-glutathione pathway in mitigating oxidative damage in plants under abiotic stress. *Antioxidants* **8**(9):384 DOI 10.3390/antiox8090384.

**Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Anee TI. 2017.** Glutathione in plants: biosynthesis and physiological role in environmental stress tolerance. *Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants* **23**:249–268 DOI 10.1007/s12298-017-0422-2.

**Havir EA, McHale NA. 1987.** Biochemical and developmental characterization of multiple forms of catalase in tobacco leaves. *Plant Physiology* **84**:450–455 DOI 10.1104/pp.84.2.450.

**Hossain MA, Mostofa MG, Diaz-Vivancos P, Burritt DJ, Fujita M, Tran L-SP. 2017.** *Glutathione in plant growth, development, and stress tolerance*. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing AG DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-66682-2.
Huang H, Ran J, Ji M, Wang Z, Dong L, Hu W, Deng Y, Hou C, Niklas KJ, Deng J. 2020. Water content quantitatively affects metabolic rates over the course of plant ontogeny. *New Phytologist* 228:1524–1534 DOI 10.1111/nph.16808.

Irigoyen JJ, Einerich DW, Sánchez-Díaz M. 1992. Water stress induced changes in con- centrations of proline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants. *Physiologia Plantarum* 84:55–60 DOI 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1992.tb08764.x.

Ito T, Ohkama-Ohtsu N. 2023. Degradation of glutathione and glutathione conjugates in plants. *Journal of Experimental Botany* erad018 DOI 10.1093/JXB/ERAD018.

Jensen ME. 1983. *Design and operation of farm irrigation systems*. Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 827.

Kampfenkel K, Van Montagu M, Inzé D. 1995. Extraction and determination of ascorbate and dehydroascorbate from plant tissue. *Analytical Biochemistry* 225:165–167 DOI 10.1006/abio.1995.1127.

Klute A. 1986. *Methods of soil analysis: part 1 physical and mineralogical methods*. Madison: the American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. DOI 10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.

Ma Y, Dias MC, Freitas H. 2020. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 11:591911 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2020.591911.

Maas EV, Grattan SR. 1999. Crop yields as affected by salinity. In: Skaggs RW Van Schilfgaarde J eds., ed. *Agricultural drainage, Agronomy*. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, 55–108 DOI 10.2134/agronmonogr38.c3.

Mahajan S, Tuteja N. 2005. Cold, salinity and drought stresses: an overview. *Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics* 444:139–158 DOI 10.1016/j.abb.2005.10.018.

Martinez V, Nieves-Cordones M, Lopez-Delacalle M, Rodenas R, Mestre TC, Garcia-Sanchez F, Rubio F, Nortes PA, Mittler R, Rivero RM. 2018. Tolerance to stress combination in tomato plants: New insights in the protective role of melatonin. *Molecules* 23:1–20 DOI 10.3390/molecules23030535.

Maxwell K, Johnson GN. 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. *Journal of Experimental Botany* 51:659–668 DOI 10.1093/jxb/51.345.659.

Mittler R. 2002. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. *Trends in Plant Science* 7:405–410 DOI 10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02312-9.

Nahar K, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam MM, Fujita M. 2015. Glutathione-induced drought stress tolerance in mung bean: coordinated roles of the antioxidant defence and methylglyoxal detoxification systems. *AoB Plants* 7:1–18 DOI 10.1093/aobpla/plv069.

Nakano Y, Asada K. 1981. Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. *Plant and Cell Physiology* 22:867–880 DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076232.

Noctor G, Mhamdi A, Chaouch S, Han Y, Neukermans J, Marquez-Garcia B, Queval G, Foyer CH. 2012. Glutathione in plants: an integrated overview. *Plant, Cell and Environment* 35:454–484 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02400.x.
**Osman AS, Rady MM. 2014.** Effect of humic acid as an additive to growing media to enhance the production of eggplant and tomato transplants. *Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology* **89**:237-244 DOI 10.1080/14620316.2014.11513074.

**Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR. 1982.** *Methods of soil analysis Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties*. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc.

**Pal S, Zhao J, Khan A, Yadav NS, Batushansky A, Barak S, Rewald B, Fait A, Lazarovitch N, Rachmilevitch S. 2016.** Paclobutrazol induces tolerance in tomato to deficit irrigation through diversified effects on plant morphology, physiology and metabolism. *Scientific Reports* **6**:1–13 DOI 10.1038/srep39321.

**Pei L, Che R, He L, Gao X, Li W, Li H. 2019.** Role of exogenous glutathione in alleviating abiotic stress in maize (*Zea mays* L.). *Journal of Plant Growth Regulation* **38**:199–215 DOI 10.1007/s00344-018-9832-9.

**Ponce VM, Pandey RP, Ercan S. 2000.** Characterization of drought across climatic spectrum. *Journal of Hydrologic Engineering* **5**:222–224 DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(222).

**Rady MM, Boriek SHK, El-mageed TAA, El-yazal MAS, Ali EF, Hassan FAS, Abdelkhalik A. 2021.** Exogenous gibberellic acid or dilute bee honey boosts drought stress tolerance in *Vicia faba* by rebalancing osmoprotectants, antioxidants, nutrients, and phytohormones. *Plants* **10**:748 DOI 10.3390/plants10040748.

**Rady MM, Hemida KA. 2016.** Sequenced application of ascorbate-proline-glutathione improves salt tolerance in maize seedlings. *Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety* **133**:252–259 DOI 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.07.028.

**Rady MM, Taha SS, Kusvuran S. 2018.** Integrative application of cyanobacteria and antioxidants improves common bean performance under saline conditions. *Scientia Horticulturae* **233**:61–69 DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.01.047.

**Rady MM, Talaat NB, Abdelhamid MT, Shawky BT, Desoky ESM. 2019.** Maize (*Zea mays* L.) grains extract mitigates the deleterious effects of salt stress on common bean (*Phaseolus vulgaris* L.) growth and physiology. *Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology* **94**:777-789 DOI 10.1080/14620316.2019.1626773.

**Rehman HU, Alharby HF, Bamagoos AA, Abdelhamid MT, Rady MM. 2021.** Sequenced application of glutathione as an antioxidant with an organic biostimulant improves physiological and metabolic adaptation to salinity in wheat. *Plant Physiology and Biochemistry* **158**:43–52 DOI 10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.11.041.

**Rosen H. 1957.** A modified ninhydrin colorimetric analysis for amino acids. *Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics* **67**:10–15 DOI 10.1016/0003-9861(57)90241-2.

**Sarker U, Oba S. 2018.** Catalase, superoxide dismutase and ascorbate-glutathione cycle enzymes confer drought tolerance of *Amaranthus tricolor*. *Scientific Reports* **8**:1–12 DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-34944-0.

**Semida WM, Abdelkhalik A, Mohamed GF, Abd El-mageed TA, El-Mageed SAA, Rady MM, Ali EF. 2021b.** Foliar application of zinc oxide nanoparticles promotes drought stress tolerance in eggplant (*Solanum melongena* L.). *Plants* **10**:421 DOI 10.3390/plants10020421.
**Semida WM, Abdelkhalik A, Rady MOA, Marey RA, Abd El-Mageed TA. 2020.** Exogenously applied proline enhances growth and productivity of drought stressed onion by improving photosynthetic efficiency, water use efficiency and up-regulating osmoprotectants. *Scientia Horticulturae* **272**:109580 DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109580.

**Semida WM, El-mageed TAAbd, Abdelkhalik A, Hemida KA, Abdurrahman HA, Howladar SM, Leilah AAA, Rady MOA. 2021a.** Selenium modulates antioxidant activity, osmoprotectants, and photosynthetic efficiency of onion under saline soil conditions. *Agronomy* **11**:855 DOI 10.3390/agronomy11050855.

**Semida WM, Hemida KA, Rady MM. 2018.** Sequenced ascorbate-proline-glutathione seed treatment elevates cadmium tolerance in cucumber transplants. *Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety* **154**:171–179 DOI 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.036.

**Sezen SM, Yazar A, Akyildiz A, Dasgan HY, Gencel B. 2008.** Yield and quality response of drip irrigated green beans under full and deficit irrigation. *Scientia Horticulturae* **117**:95–102 DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.03.032.

**Sharma A, Shahzad B, Kumar V, Kohli SK, Sidhu GPS, Bali AS, Handa N, Kapoor D, Bhardwaj R, Zheng B. 2019.** Phytohormones regulate accumulation of osmolytes under abiotic stress. *Biomolecules* **9**(7):285 DOI 10.3390/biom9070285.

**Sohag AAM, Tahjib-Ul-Arif M, Polash MAS, Belal Chowdhury M, Afrin S, Burritt DJ, Murata Y, Hossain MA, Afzal Hossain M. 2020.** Exogenous glutathione-mediated drought stress tolerance in rice (*Oryza sativa* L.) is associated with lower oxidative damage and favorable ionic homeostasis. *Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction A: Science* **44**:955–971 DOI 10.1007/s40995-020-00917-0.

**Taiz L, Zeiger E. 2010.** *Plant physiology*. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc.

**Tausz M, Šircelj H, Grill D. 2004.** The glutathione system as a stress marker in plant ecophysiology: is a stress-response concept valid? *Journal of Experimental Botany* **55**:1955–1962 DOI 10.1093/jxb/erh194.

**Thomas H, Howarth CJ. 2000.** Five ways to stay green. *Journal of Experimental Botany* **51**:329–337 DOI 10.1093/jexbot/51.suppl_1.329.

**Tian F, Gong J, Zhang J, Zhang M, Wang G, Li A, Wang W. 2013.** Enhanced stability of thylakoid membrane proteins and antioxidant competence contribute to drought stress resistance in the *tasg1* wheat stay-green mutant. *Journal of Experimental Botany* **64**:1509–1520 DOI 10.1093/jxb/ert004.

**Tombesi S, Nardini A, Frioni T, Soccolini M, Zadra C, Farinelli D, Poni S, Palliotti A. 2015.** Stomatal closure is induced by hydraulic signals and maintained by ABA in drought-stressed grapevine. *Scientific Reports* **5**:12449 DOI 10.1038/srep12449.

**Turner NC. 2018.** Turgor maintenance by osmotic adjustment: 40 years of progress. *Journal of Experimental Botany* **69**:3223–3233 DOI 10.1093/jxb/ery181.

**Vernoux T, Wilson RC, Seeley KA, Reichheld JP, Muroy S, Brown S, Maughan SC, Cobbett CS, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, May MJ, Sung ZR. 2000.** The ROOT MERISTEMLESS1/CADMIUM SENSITIVE2 gene defines a glutathione-dependent pathway involved in initiation and maintenance of cell division during postembryonic root development. *Plant Cell* **12**:97–109 DOI 10.2307/3871032.
**Wang Z, Li G, Sun H, Ma L, Guo Y, Zhao Z, Gao H, Mei L. 2018.** Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis and photosynthetic electron transport chain in young apple tree leaves. *Biology Open* 7:1–9 DOI 10.1242/bio.035279.

**Waqas MA, Kaya C, Riaz A, Farooq M, Nawaz I, Wilkes A, Li Y. 2019.** Potential mechanisms of abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants induced by thiourea. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 10:1–14 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2019.01336.

**Xiong L, Zhu JK. 2002.** Molecular and genetic aspects of plant responses to osmotic stress. *Plant, Cell and Environment* 25:131–139 DOI 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2002.00782.x.

**Zhang L, Wu M, Teng Y, Jia S, Yu D, Wei T, Chen C, Song W. 2019.** Overexpression of the glutathione peroxidase 5 (RcGPX5) gene from *Rhodiola crenulata* increases drought tolerance in *Salvia miltiorrhiza*. *Frontiers in Plant Science* 9:1–16 DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.01950.

**Zhou Y, Diao M, Chen X, Cui J, Pang S, Li Y. 2019.** Application of exogenous glutathione confers salinity stress tolerance in tomato seedlings by modulating ions homeostasis and polyamine metabolism. *Scientia Horticulturae* 250:45–58 DOI 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.026.

**Zhu Y, Luo X, Nawaz G, Yin J, Yang J. 2020.** Physiological and biochemical Responses of four cassava cultivars to drought stress. *Scientific Reports* 10(1):6968 DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-63809-8.