# Pomegranate-quinoa-based agroforestry system: An innovative strategy to alleviate salinity effects and enhance land use efficiency in salt-affected semiarid regions

Ilham Abidi, Khalid Daoui, Aziz Abouabdillah, Didier Bazile, Abdel Aziz Hassane Sidikou, Loubna Belqadi, Hamid Mahyou, Si Bennasseur Alaoui

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

## To cite this version:

Ilham Abidi, Khalid Daoui, Aziz Abouabdillah, Didier Bazile, Abdel Aziz Hassane Sidikou, et al. "Pomegranate-quinoa-based agroforestry system: An innovative strategy to alleviate salinity effects and enhance land use efficiency in salt-affected semiarid regions." Plants, 2024, 13 (18), pp.2543. 10.3390/plants13182543. [https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13182543](https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13182543)

HAL Id: hal-04783969

https://univ-montpellier3-paul-valery.hal.science/hal-04783969v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

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_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Article

# Pomegranate–Quinoa-Based Agroforestry System: An Innovative Strategy to Alleviate Salinity Effects and Enhance Land Use Efficiency in Salt-Affected Semiarid Regions

Ilham Abidi <fnref n="1" />*, Khalid Daoui <fnref n="2" /> ID, Aziz Abouabdillah <fnref n="3" /> ID, Didier Bazile <fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" /> ID, Abdel Aziz Hassane Sidikou <fnref n="1" />, Loubna Belqadi <fnref n="1" />, Hamid Mahyou <fnref n="6" /> and Si Bennasseur Alaoui <fnref n="1" />

**Abstract:** Salinity is a major problem, impeding soil productivity, agricultural sustainability, and food security, particularly in dry regions. This study integrates quinoa, a facultative halophyte, into a pomegranate-based agroforestry with saline irrigation in northeast Morocco. We aim to explore this agroforestry model's potential in mitigating salinity's effects on quinoa's agronomic and biochemical traits and evaluate the land equivalent ratio (LER). Field experiments in 2020 and 2021 used a randomized block design with three replicates, including monocropping and agroforestry systems, two salinity levels (1.12 and 10.5 dS m⁻<fnref n="1" />), four quinoa genotypes (Titicaca, Puno, ICBA-Q4, ICBA-Q5), and a pomegranate control. Salinity significantly decreased total dry matter (40.5%), root dry matter (50.7%), leaf dry matter (39.2%), and root-to-shoot ratio (7.7%). The impact was more severe in monoculture than in agroforestry, reducing dry matter (47.6% vs. 30.7%), grain yield (46.3% vs. 26.1%), water productivity (47.5% vs. 23.9%), and total sugar (19.2% vs. 5.6%). LER averaged 1.86 to 2.21, indicating 86–121% higher productivity in agroforestry. LER averaged 1.85 at 1.12 dS m⁻<fnref n="1" /> and 2.18 at 10.5 dS m⁻<fnref n="1" />, reaching 2.21 with pomegranate-ICBA-Q5 combination. Quinoa–pomegranate agroforestry emerges as an innovative strategy, leveraging quinoa’s salt resistance and agroforestry’s potential to mitigate salinity impacts while enhancing land use efficiency.

**Keywords:** *Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.; grain yield; intercropping system; land equivalent ratio; pomegranate trees; salt stress

## 1. Introduction

Salt-affected landscapes cover 1257 million hectares worldwide, representing about 8.5% of the land area across 118 countries with vast areas remain uncultivated in arid and semiarid regions [1,2]. In irrigated areas, salt-induced land degradation leads to an annual productivity loss of approximately USD 27.3 billion [3]. In addition to this, climate crisis is continuously amplifying soil and water salinization, impeding soil productivity, agricultural sustainability, and food security, particularly in arid and semiarid regions [4,5]. Furthermore, intensive monoculture exacerbates soil and water salinization. It covers 80% of the world's arable land [6], making it susceptible to climate change and yield losses from pests and diseases. Sole cropping systems also degrade soil through improper agrochemical uses, heavy mechanization, and unbalanced crop rotations focused on cash crops. In

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

check for
updates

**Citation:** Abidi, I.; Daoui, K.; Abouabdillah, A.; Bazile, D.; Hassane Sidikou, A.A.; Belqadi, L.; Mahyou, H.; Alaoui, S.B.

Pomegranate–Quinoa-Based Agroforestry System: An Innovative Strategy to Alleviate Salinity Effects and Enhance Land Use Efficiency in Salt-Affected Semiarid Regions. *Plants* **2024**, *13*, 2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13182543

Academic Editor: Fernando Henrique Reboredo

Received: 18 July 2024

Revised: 5 September 2024

Accepted: 6 September 2024

Published: 10 September 2024

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

<footnote n="1">¹ Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat 10112, Morocco;
aa sidikou@gmail.com (A.A.H.S.); l.belqadi@gmail.com (L.B.); b.alaoui@iav.ac.ma (S.B.A.)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² National Institute for Agricultural Research, Regional Agricultural Research Center, Meknès 50000, Morocco;
daoui khalid@yahoo.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Ecole Nationale d'Agriculture de Meknès, Meknès 50001, Morocco; aziz.abouabdillah@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ CIRAD, UMR SENS, F-34398 Montpellier, France; didier.bazile@cirad.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 UMR SENS, CIRAD, IRD, University Paul Valery Montpellier 3, University Montpellier,
F-34090 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 National Institute for Agricultural Research, Regional Agricultural Research Center, Oujda 60000, Morocco;
hamid.mahyou@inra.ma</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: i.abidi@iav.ac.ma</footnote>
response to salt pressure, plants endure a multitude of morphological, physiological, and metabolic changes, leading to substantial reductions in crop yield and quality [7,8].

Halophytes species adapt to salinity by adjusting internal water relations, sequestering ions in vacuoles, accumulating compatible organic solutes, developing succulence, and using salt-secreting glands and bladders [7–10]. Many halophytes, including quinoa, demonstrate high K+/Na+ selectivity to sustain cellular functions and growth under saline conditions [11,12]. This adaptation involves a combination of efficient ion transport mechanisms—primarily sodium (Na+) exclusion and selective potassium (K+) uptake—along with maintaining favorable K+/Na+ ratios in the cytoplasm through cytoplasmic homeostasis and sodium compartmentalization in vacuoles [13]. These strategies allow quinoa to thrive in saline environments by minimizing the detrimental effects of Na+ while ensuring sufficient K+ for essential cellular processes. Additionally, quinoa reduces transpiration rates by closing its stomata to conserve water [14]. This response decreases leaf gas exchange, stomatal conductance, and overall transpiration under saline conditions [15], ultimately improving photosynthetic water use efficiency [16,17]. Furthermore, under saline conditions, halophytes experience elevated ROS production that they manage effectively, using these molecules as signaling agents to activate stress adaptation pathways [18]. For instance, ROS can trigger the activation of antioxidant defenses and the expression of stress-responsive genes. These antioxidants neutralize excess ROS, protecting cells from oxidative damage. The key lies in maintaining a balance between ROS production and scavenging, enabling halophytes to leverage ROS for signaling while minimizing their noxious effects [19].

This ability makes halophytes advantageous for bioremediating salt-affected areas [20,21]. On the other hand, in dry and salt-prone regions, managing saline water can alleviate freshwater scarcity and enhance overall water productivity to meet the food demands of a rapidly growing population [22,23]. Furthermore, implementing salt-resilient systems that balance productivity and sustainability is crucial [24,25].

Over the past four decades, managing salt-affected lands has increasingly focused on strategies such as tree-based cropping, saline pastures, and biosaline agriculture [19,20]. Agroforestry in saline environments enhances land-use efficiency and supports vulnerable populations [26]. The soil–plant–atmosphere continuum (SPAC) illustrates the interconnected flow of water from soil through plants to the atmosphere, shaped by the interactions between trees, crops, and the environment. Trees access deep soil water and redistribute it to nearby crops, especially during dry periods [27]. Additionally, trees improve nutrient cycling, soil structure, and contribute organic matter, leading to more efficient water use and better plant growth [28]. Furthermore, positive interactions like moderate shading create a more stable microclimate for understory plants, by conserving soil humidity levels and reducing temperature fluctuations, which can lead to better growth conditions [29–31]. Furthermore, intercropping plants with legumes enhances soil nitrogen availability, benefiting neighboring plants and contributing to improved soil fertility through symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria [32–34]. Additionally, these interactions can support beneficial soil microorganisms, such as plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), enhancing nutrient uptake, disease resistance, and overall plant health [34].

Biosaline agroforestry combines the principles of agroforestry with the integration of salt-resilient species [35,36], addressing the needs of climate change mitigation and adaptation on salt-affected soils [37]. It can improve soil health [38], boost biodiversity, generate economic returns, and promote sustainable agricultural practices in saline environments [39]. This approach offers opportunities for farmers to integrate salt-resistant crops into agroforestry systems under saline irrigation when fresh water is scarce and conventional farming is unproductive [22,40].

The net productivity of halophyte-based agroforestry hinges on the dynamic interactions among its components across time and space, particularly in their utilization of shared resources like water, nutrients, and light. Species may compete when their demands for these limited resources overlap temporally and spatially [41]. However, positive interactions such as facilitation or complementarity can also occur if they utilize the available
resources in separate ways [24,25]. In this context, Bayala et al. (2020) [42] asserted that intercropped species can enhance the acquisition of limited natural resources through complementary root distributions and water-sharing mechanisms. Indeed, while trees may compete with crops for soil resources, they can also provide shade, improving crop growing conditions [43], by reducing evapotranspiration and buffering temperature fluctuations [30,44]. However, shade differently affects crop yield depending on the shading's intensity [31]. Shade reduces maize grain yield more significantly than soybean, whereas intercropping species under saline irrigation fosters positive synergies, achieving a land equivalent ratio of up to 1 [34–38].

In our study, we envision combining the positive effects of agroforestry with the high salt resistance of halophytic crops by integrating quinoa into pomegranate-based agroforestry. Indeed, quinoa has a unique versatility across diverse climates by exhibiting resilience to various abiotic stresses, including drought, heat, frost, and salinity [22,45–48]. Its unique versatility results in its efficient system adjusting osmotically and reducing its transpiration to maintain a positive water balance in response to salinity [49]. Its response to salinity stress is strongly genotype dependent [50,51]. Quinoa is considered a novel and healthy food thanks to its exceptional nutritional profile [52]. Quinoa seeds are gluten-free; rich in vitamins, high-quality fat, dietary fiber, and prominent protein (9–23%); and have a balanced amino acid profile [53–57]. Moreover, quinoa contains numerous bioactive compounds that confer medicinal properties, including phytosterols, saponins, phenolic compounds, phytoecdysteroids, polysaccharides, and betalains [58,59]. Compared to cereal grains such as barley, rice, maize, and oats, quinoa excels with a higher total protein content [60]. The resilience and high nutritional quality of quinoa have positioned it as a potential strategic crop for food and nutritional security [61]. It is recognized as “one of the grains of the 21st century”, poised to meet the needs of an expanding global population [62].

This study aims to explore the potential of halophytes-based agroforestry as an innovative option for enhancing salt-affected land use efficiency under saline conditions. We integrate quinoa, as a facultative halophyte, into a pomegranate-based agroforestry system under supplemental saline irrigation in the northeastern region of Morocco. Our objectives include assessing the overall performance of this new system while determining the land equivalent ratio. We will also investigate how intercropping quinoa with pomegranate trees mitigates the impact of salinity on the agronomic and biochemical traits of different quinoa varieties, seeking the optimal combination for local farmers dealing with salinity challenges. To accomplish this, we will compare the variations in these parameters between saline and control treatments within each cropping system. We hypothesize that (1) Intercropping quinoa with pomegranate trees under saline irrigation can serve as an efficient agroforestry model, enhancing the land use efficiency and the productivity of the whole system; (2) Due to the positive relationships of facilitation and complementarity between quinoa and pomegranate trees, quinoa-pomegranate agroforestry can mitigate the negative effects of salinity on both pomegranate and quinoa productivity compared to growing them separately. On the other hand, (3) the response to salinity will also depend on climatic conditions and the specific combinations of quinoa varieties and pomegranate trees. We aim to (i) assess the effectiveness of the quinoa-pomegranate agroforestry system and determine the optimal pomegranate tree-quinoa cultivar combination using the land equivalent ratio (LER), and (ii) compare the quinoa agronomic and biochemical traits variation under saline irrigation in both agroforestry and sole cropping systems.

## 2. Results

### 2.1. Quinoa Growth Parameters

Table 1 summarizes the results of the ANOVA (analysis of variance) for all investigated parameters as affected by irrigation water salinity, cropping systems, quinoa genotypes, and their interactions. Significant variations were observed in RDM (−11.8%), LDM (194%), SLA (−66.57%), and root/shoot ratio (−15.4%) within AFS compared to SCS. Variations according to salinity levels were −10% in height, −40.5% in TDM, −50.7% in
RDM, -39.2% in LDM, and -7.7% in root/shoot ratio within EC2 (10.5 dS m⁻¹) compared to EC1 (1.12 dS m⁻¹). Furthermore, Puno averaged the high values in height (131.7 cm), TDM (80.3 g plant⁻¹), and RDM (8.5 g plant⁻¹), while low averages in all parameters, except root/shoot, were recorded by ICBA-Q5.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Quinoa growth parameters at flowering stage as affected by the three monitored factors: cropping systems, irrigation water salinity levels, quinoa varieties, and their interactions.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Height (cm)</th><th>TDM (g Plant<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>RDM (g Plant<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>LDM (g Plant<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>LA (cm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th>SLA (cm<sup>2</sup> g<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Root/Shoot</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">F</td><td>CS</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>3.9 ns</td><td>5.7 *</td><td>589.5 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>47.6 ***</td><td>37.7 ***</td></tr><tr><td>EC</td><td>41.3 ***</td><td>379.9 ***</td><td>248 ***</td><td>146 ***</td><td>3.2 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>9.4 **</td></tr><tr><td>Variety</td><td>157.4 ***</td><td>256.7 ***</td><td>133.6 ***</td><td>20.9 ***</td><td>3.8 *</td><td>2.9 ns</td><td>150.3 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC</td><td>0 ns</td><td>1.3 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>72.1 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.1 ns</td><td>0.8 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS × Variety</td><td>1.5 ns</td><td>1 ns</td><td>0.5 ns</td><td>20.8 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>1.1 ns</td><td>1.3 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC × Variety</td><td>3.9 *</td><td>121.4 ***</td><td>83.7 ***</td><td>13.4 ***</td><td>6.8 **</td><td>5.6 **</td><td>143.4 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC × Variety</td><td>1.8 ns</td><td>0.8 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>22.7 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>3.3 *</td><td>1.3 ns</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CS</td><td>AFS</td><td>102.8 ± 19.1 a</td><td>52.8 ± 28.3 a</td><td>5.1 ± 3.7 b</td><td>9.4 ± 3.9 a</td><td>5463.3 ± 2987.1 a</td><td>593.8 ± 231.5 b</td><td>0.11 ± 0.05 b</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>103.5 ± 20.6 a</td><td>50.2 ± 24.9 a</td><td>5.7 ± 3.6 a</td><td>3.2 ± 0.7 b</td><td>5526.1 ± 2956.2 a</td><td>1776 ± 1014.6 a</td><td>0.13 ± 0.05 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EC</td><td>EC1</td><td>108.4 ± 21.6 a</td><td>64.5 ± 28.6 a</td><td>7.3 ± 4.3 a</td><td>7.9 ± 5 a</td><td>6098.3 ± 3336.4 a</td><td>1132.5 ± 987.7 a</td><td>0.13 ± 0.07 a</td></tr><tr><td>EC2</td><td>97.8 ± 16.4 b</td><td>38.4 ± 16.4 b</td><td>3.6 ± 1.2 b</td><td>4.8 ± 2.4 b</td><td>4891 ± 2409 a</td><td>1237.2 ± 894.9 a</td><td>0.12 ± 0.04 b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Variety</td><td>Titicaca</td><td>95.1 ± 7.6 c</td><td>45.3 ± 12.8 c</td><td>6.9 ± 4 b</td><td>7.6 ± 5.5 a</td><td>6001.6 ± 3288.7 a</td><td>1221.1 ± 987.6 ab</td><td>0.17 ± 0.07 a</td></tr><tr><td>Puno</td><td>131.7 ± 12 a</td><td>80.3 ± 32.4 a</td><td>8.5 ± 3.7 a</td><td>7 ± 4.5 a</td><td>5904.9 ± 3446.4 a</td><td>1193 ± 981 ab</td><td>0.12 ± 0.01 c</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q4</td><td>102.7 ± 6.6 b</td><td>51.5 ± 6.7 b</td><td>3.2 ± 1 c</td><td>5.7 ± 2.5 b</td><td>6491.4 ± 1998 a</td><td>1517.2 ± 1073.4 a</td><td>0.07 ± 0.02 d</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q5</td><td>83.1 ± 7.1 d</td><td>28.9 ± 14.6 d</td><td>3.1 ± 1 c</td><td>5.1 ± 3.1 b</td><td>3580.7 ± 1886.9 b</td><td>808.2 ± 469 b</td><td>0.14 ± 0.04 b</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 12). In each factor, for each parameter, means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different. * denotes *p* < 0.05, ** denotes *p* < 0.01, *** denotes *p* < 0.001; ns = not significant. CS, AFS, and SCS are cropping system, agroforestry, and sole cropping systems, respectively. EC1 and EC2 are fresh water (1.12 dS m⁻¹) and saline water (10.5 dS m⁻¹) for irrigation, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using R programming language. TDM: total dry matter, RDM: root dry matter, LDM: leaf dry matter, LA: leaf area; SLA: specific leaf area.

## 2.2. Quinoa Grain Yield and Yield-Related Components

The results revealed highly significant impacts of irrigation water salinity and quinoa genotypes on all investigated agronomic traits. Total dry matter (TDM), grain yield, and quinoa water productivity (QWP) did not vary significantly between the two cropping systems, whereas the experimental year had a significant effect on all parameters, except the harvest index (HI). Regarding interactions, (CS × EC), (EC × Variety), and (CS × EC × Variety) significantly affected nearly all parameters (Table 2). Table 3 synthesizes the variation in all agronomic parameters under saline irrigation water (10.5 dS m⁻¹) compared to the control (1.12 dS m⁻¹), reported in Table S1. We observed that high salinity level reduced all parameters, except the harvest index within the two cropping systems and across both experimental years. The losses were more pronounced within sole cropping system (SCS) than agroforestry (AFS). In 2020, the reductions due to salinity in dry matter, grain yield, thousand-kernel weight, and quinoa water productivity were (30.2% vs. 45.6%), (33.3% vs. 46.7%), (10.3% vs. 14.8%), and (23.9% vs. 44.4%), respectively, in AFS compared to SCS. In 2021, the related losses were (31.3% vs. 47.1%), (24.2 vs. 45.9%), (7.7% vs. 16%), and (23.9% vs. 46.4%). Conversely, high irrigation water salinity increased the harvest index by 11.5% when quinoa varieties were intercropped with pomegranate trees. Furthermore, the impact of salinity on all parameters was quinoa genotype dependent. Titicaca was the most affected variety by salinity, particularly during the first experimental season, whereas ICBA-Q5 exhibited the lowest percentage of loss in most parameters (Table 2).
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Grain yield and yield-related components as affected by the monitored factors and their interactions.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Dry Biomass<br>(t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Grain Yield<br>(t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Harvest Index</th><th>Thousand-<br>Kernel<br>Weight (g)</th><th>Quinoa Water<br>Productivity<br>(kg m<sup>-3</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">F</td><td>Year</td><td>140.2 ***</td><td>51.7 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>32.7 ***</td><td>61.3 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS</td><td>0.7 ns</td><td>3.4 ns</td><td>5 *</td><td>38.8 ***</td><td>3.5 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC</td><td>944.3 ***</td><td>266.7 ***</td><td>10.7 **</td><td>82.9 ***</td><td>265.8 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Variety</td><td>12.6 ***</td><td>5.1 **</td><td>14.4 ***</td><td>121.1 ***</td><td>5.1 **</td></tr><tr><td>Year × EC</td><td>10.6 **</td><td>2.9 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>2.2 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC</td><td>48.9 ***</td><td>32.5 ***</td><td>8 **</td><td>5.6 *</td><td>32 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS × Variety</td><td>1.5 ns</td><td>1.8 ns</td><td>3.5 *</td><td>0.7 ns</td><td>1.8 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC × Variety</td><td>35.2 ***</td><td>7.5 ***</td><td>11.7 ***</td><td>4.9 **</td><td>7.6 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC × Variety</td><td>11.2 ***</td><td>4.8 **</td><td>4.7 **</td><td>0.3 ns</td><td>4.9 **</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Year</td><td>2020</td><td>4.7 ± 1.39 b</td><td>2 ± 0.95 b</td><td>0.45 ± 0.19 a</td><td>2.4 ± 0.57 a</td><td>0.79 ± 0.37 a</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>5.6 ± 1.58 a</td><td>2.4 ± 1.16 a</td><td>0.45 ± 0.19 a</td><td>2.3 ± 0.51 b</td><td>0.64 ± 0.31 b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CS</td><td>AFS</td><td>5.2 ± 1.31 a</td><td>2.3 ± 0.98 a</td><td>0.46 ± 0.19 a</td><td>2.5 ± 0.57 a</td><td>0.73 ± 0.32 a</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>5.1 ± 1.76 a</td><td>2.2 ± 1.17 a</td><td>0.44 ± 0.19 b</td><td>2.3 ± 0.51 b</td><td>0.7 ± 0.38 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EC</td><td>EC1</td><td>6.4 ± 1.09 a</td><td>2.7 ± 1.16 a</td><td>0.44 ± 0.19 b</td><td>2.5 ± 0.56 a</td><td>0.86 ± 0.38 a</td></tr><tr><td>EC2</td><td>3.9 ± 0.76 b</td><td>1.7 ± 0.74 b</td><td>0.46 ± 0.19 a</td><td>2.2 ± 0.5 b</td><td>0.56 ± 0.24 b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Varieties</td><td>Titicaca</td><td>5.3 ± 2.02 a</td><td>2.5 ± 0.81 b</td><td>0.5 ± 0.07 b</td><td>2.9 ± 0.35 a</td><td>0.8 ± 0.26 b</td></tr><tr><td>Puno</td><td>4.9 ± 1.47 b</td><td>2.8 ± 0.97 a</td><td>0.6 ± 0.05 a</td><td>2.5 ± 0.38 c</td><td>0.9 ± 0.32 a</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q4</td><td>4.7 ± 1.22 c</td><td>2.5 ± 0.64 b</td><td>0.5 ± 0.06 a</td><td>2 ± 0.19 d</td><td>0.8 ± 0.21 b</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q5</td><td>4.7 ± 0.93 c</td><td>2.6 ± 0.54 b</td><td>0.6 ± 0.05 a</td><td>2.8 ± 0.26 b</td><td>0.9 ± 0.17 b</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 24). In each factor, for each parameter, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different. * denotes *p* < 0.05, ** denotes *p* < 0.01, *** denotes *p* < 0.001; ns = not significant. CS, AFS, and SCS are cropping system, agroforestry, and sole cropping systems, respectively. EC1 and EC2 are electrical conductivities of fresh water (1.12 dS.m⁻¹) and saline water (10.5 dS.m⁻¹) for irrigation, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using R programming language.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Variation (%) in agronomic parameters due to the irrigation water salinity EC2 (10.5 dS m⁻¹) compared to the control EC1 (1.12 dS m⁻¹) in each cropping system across both experimental seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>CS</th><th>DM (%)</th><th>Grain Yield (%)</th><th>HI (%)</th><th>TKW (%)</th><th>QWP (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">2020</td><td>AFS</td><td>-30.1</td><td>-28</td><td>11.5</td><td>-10.3</td><td>-23.9</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>-45.6</td><td>-46.7</td><td>0</td><td>-14.8</td><td>-48.6</td></tr><tr><td>Mean 2020</td><td>-37.8</td><td>-34.5</td><td>5.7</td><td>-10.7</td><td>-36.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">2021</td><td>AFS</td><td>-31.3</td><td>-24.2</td><td>11.5</td><td>-7.7</td><td>-23.9</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>-47.1</td><td>-45.9</td><td>0</td><td>-16</td><td>-46.4</td></tr><tr><td>Mean 2021</td><td>-40.3</td><td>-34.3</td><td>5.7</td><td>-11.5</td><td>-33.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Overall mean</td><td>-39.3</td><td>-34.4</td><td>5.7</td><td>-11.1</td><td>-34.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

CS, AFS, and SCS are cropping system, agroforestry, and sole cropping systems, respectively.

## 2.3. Pomegranate Yield and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)

The average pomegranate yields were significantly higher within EC1 than EC2 (27.92 t ha⁻¹ vs. 25.62 t ha⁻¹, *p* < 0.001). Furthermore, significant interactions between water salinity levels and cropping systems were noted (*p* < 0.001). Pomegranate yields decreased differently under saline irrigation (EC2), depending on pomegranate–quinoa associations or pomegranate orchard. For instance, when associated with ICBA-Q5, pomegranate yield decreased by 10% under EC2. Furthermore, within the same water salinity level, significant differences in pomegranate yield among different pomegranate–quinoa associations were recorded (*p* < 0.001). In fact, it ranged from 23.9 t ha⁻¹ (*p*-Puno) to 34.2 t ha⁻¹ (*p*-ICBA-Q5) with EC1 and from 22.1 t ha⁻¹ (P-Puno) to 31 t ha⁻¹ (P-ICBA-Q5) with
EC2. Significant variations in pomegranate yield were recorded among quinoa varieties—pomegranate associations, and pomegranate orchard ($p < 0.001$). Under both water regimes, the P-ICBA-Q5 combination resulted in an increase in the average pomegranate yield by 13% and 10% compared to the pomegranate orchard under EC1 and EC2 conditions, respectively (Figure 1).

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

**Figure 1.** Pomegranate yield (t ha⁻¹) as affected by water salinity level (*p* < 0.001) and by pomegranate–quinoa associations (P-Titicaca, P-Puno, P-ICBA-Q4, P-ICBA-Q5) compared to pomegranate orchard (Pg). Vertical bars denote standard deviations (n = 6). For electrical conductivity of control treatment (EC1 = 1.12 dS m⁻¹), means followed by the same lowercase letter are not significantly different. Similarly, for saline water treatment (10.5 dS m⁻¹), means followed by the same lowercase letter (with apostrophe) are not significantly different.

The contribution of quinoa varieties and pomegranate trees to the overall productiv-
ity of the agroforestry system were evaluated by calculating the partial land equivalent
ratios of each component: land equivalent ratio for quinoa varieties (LER<sub>Quinoa</sub>) and for
pomegranate trees (LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub>). LER<sub>Quinoa</sub> and LER of the whole system were signif-
icantly affected by irrigation water salinity (*p* < 0.001) and were 36.2% and 20% higher
under saline conditions (10.5 dS m<sup>-1</sup>) compared to the control (EC1 = 1.12 dS m<sup>-1</sup>), re-
spectively. Furthermore, LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub> and LER varied significantly depending on the
quinoa variety associated with pomegranate trees. The higher averages were recorded by
P-ICBAQ5 association for both parameters and were 1.11 and 2.21, respectively. LER<sub>Quinoa</sub>
and LER were significantly influenced by the interactions between salinity and quinoa
variety intercropped with pomegranate trees (*p* < 0.001), whereas LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub> varied
significantly with the interaction between experimental season and irrigation water salinity.
LER<sub>Quinoa</sub> and LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub> averaged from 1.08 to 1.15 and from 0.79 to 1.11, respectively.
LER of the whole system was always higher than 1 and averaged from 1.86 to 2.21 (Table 4).
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Partial and combined land equivalent ratios as affected by irrigation water salinity and quinoa variety over two experimental seasons.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>LER<sub>Quinoa</sub></th><th>LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub></th><th>LER</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">F</td><td>Year</td><td>0.1 ns</td><td>4.9 *</td><td>0.6 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC</td><td>108.6 ***</td><td>1.9 ns</td><td>85.3 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Variety</td><td>1.1 ns</td><td>198.3 ***</td><td>10 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Year × EC</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>4.9 *</td><td>0 ns</td></tr><tr><td>Year × Variety</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>0 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC × Variety</td><td>6.9 ***</td><td>0.7 ns</td><td>6.3 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Year × EC × Variety</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>0 ns</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Year</td><td>2020</td><td>1.126 ± 0.232 a</td><td>0.901 ± 0.14 a</td><td>2.027 ± 0.275 a</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>1.115 ± 0.237 a</td><td>0.887 ± 0.144 b</td><td>2.003 ± 0.268 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EC</td><td>EC1</td><td>0.949 ± 0.179 b</td><td>0.902 ± 0.144 a</td><td>1.851 ± 0.258 b</td></tr><tr><td>EC2</td><td>1.293 ± 0.127 a</td><td>0.886 ± 0.14 a</td><td>2.179 ± 0.16 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Associations</td><td>P-Titicaca</td><td>1.154 ± 0.194 a</td><td>0.861 ± 0.073 b</td><td>2.015 ± 0.241 b</td></tr><tr><td>P-Puno</td><td>1.077 ± 0.322 a</td><td>0.786 ± 0.049 d</td><td>1.863 ± 0.326 b</td></tr><tr><td>P-ICBA-Q4</td><td>1.161 ± 0.228 a</td><td>0.815 ± 0.044 c</td><td>1.976 ± 0.232 b</td></tr><tr><td>P-ICBA-Q5</td><td>1.091 ± 0.176 a</td><td>1.114 ± 0.036 a</td><td>2.205 ± 0.159 a</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 12). For each experimental year and salinity level and system, means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different. * denotes *p* < 0.05, *** denotes *p* < 0.001; ns = not significant. AFS and SCS are agroforestry and sole cropping systems, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using R programming language.

## 2.4. Nutritional, Mineral, and Saponin Content in Quinoa Seeds

The results depict substantial variations in mineral (F = 178.2), protein (F = 84.5), total sugar (F = 39.9), and saponin (F = 9.6) accumulation across the cropping systems. Total sugar was 13% lower under saline irrigation compared to the control. Quinoa genotype significantly influenced all seed nutritional components (*p* < 0.01), while the experimental year affected only mineral content (Table 5). Significant differences in seed mineral and protein content were found based on the cropping system and the experimental seasons interaction (Year × CS, *p* < 0.001), and in seed mineral content under the interaction between salinity levels and the experimental season (Year × EC, *p* < 0.001). Total sugar and saponin content varied significantly with irrigation water salinity and cropping systems (CS × EC, *p* < 0.001). Additionally, mineral content, fat content, and crude cellulose (CB) showed notable variation due to the interactions between quinoa genotypes and irrigation water salinity (EC × Variety, *p* < 0.01) (Table 5).

Seed mineral content was 5.6% lower in 2021 for both AFS and SCS (Figure S1a). Protein content, fat content, and crude cellulose content did not show any significant differences with irrigation water salinity for both cropping systems across the two experimental seasons (Figure S1b–d). However, a significant increase in protein content was recorded in AFS compared to SCS (17.1% vs. 15.7%) (Figure S1b). Additionally, in SCS over the two experimental years, the average total sugar significantly decreased by 20% under salinity compared to the control (Figure S1e). Seeds saponin content is quinoa genotype dependent, averaging from 0.4% (ICBA-Q5) to 0.6% (Titicaca) (Table S2). Nonetheless, significant differences were noted between the two cropping systems (*p* < 0.05) in 2020, but not in 2021 (*p* = 0.702). Similarly, seeds saponin content was significantly affected by salinity in AFS, unlike in the SCS system, over both seasons (Figure S1f).
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Variation in quinoa seeds' nutrients and saponin content according to experimental season, cropping system, irrigation water salinity, quinoa genotypes, and their interactions.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Mineral<br>(% DM)</th><th>Protein<br>(% DM)</th><th>Fat<br>(% DM)</th><th>CB<br>(% DM)</th><th>Total Sugar<br>(mg 10g<sup>-1</sup><br>DM<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Saponin<br>(g 100g<sup>-1</sup><br>DM<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">F</td><td>Year</td><td>12 ***</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>3.2 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>0.3 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS</td><td>178.2 ***</td><td>84.5 ***</td><td>1.4 ns</td><td>0.3 ns</td><td>39.9 ***</td><td>9.6 **</td></tr><tr><td>EC</td><td>14.5 ***</td><td>1.4 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>63.4 ***</td><td>1.9 ns</td></tr><tr><td>Variety</td><td>5.9 **</td><td>4.8 **</td><td>15.9 ***</td><td>21.8 ***</td><td>17.2 ***</td><td>4.3 **</td></tr><tr><td>Year × CS</td><td>77.5 ***</td><td>14.8 ***</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.8 ns</td></tr><tr><td>Year × EC</td><td>13.3 ***</td><td>0.5 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.7 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC</td><td>3.4 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td><td>2.3 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td><td>19.4 ***</td><td>12.2 ***</td></tr><tr><td>EC × Variety</td><td>6 **</td><td>2 ns</td><td>10.7 ***</td><td>18 ***</td><td>1.6 ns</td><td>1.2 ns</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Year</td><td>2020</td><td>89.7 ± 4.08 a</td><td>16.5 ± 1.09 a</td><td>5.5 ± 0.4 a</td><td>4.8 ± 1.02 a</td><td>243.5 ± 33.75 a</td><td>0.51 ± 0.16 a</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>87.6 ± 7.57 b</td><td>16.4 ± 1.27 a</td><td>5.4 ± 0.39 a</td><td>4.7 ± 1.01 a</td><td>241.1 ± 33.41 a</td><td>0.49 ± 0.15 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">CS</td><td>AFS</td><td>92.6 ± 4.5 a</td><td>17.1 ± 0.99 a</td><td>5.5 ± 0.4 a</td><td>4.8 ± 1.02 a</td><td>255.3 ± 25.49 a</td><td>0.46 ± 0.15 b</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>84.6 ± 4.82 b</td><td>15.7 ± 0.9 b</td><td>5.5 ± 0.39 a</td><td>4.7 ± 1 a</td><td>229.3 ± 35.53 b</td><td>0.54 ± 0.15 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EC</td><td>EC1</td><td>89.8 ± 5.12 a</td><td>16.5 ± 1.12 a</td><td>5.5 ± 0.43 a</td><td>4.8 ± 0.96 a</td><td>258.7 ± 27.75 a</td><td>0.52 ± 0.14 a</td></tr><tr><td>EC2</td><td>87.5 ± 6.87 b</td><td>16.3 ± 1.24 a</td><td>5.5 ± 0.36 a</td><td>4.8 ± 1.06 a</td><td>225.9 ± 30.63 b</td><td>0.48 ± 0.17 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Varieties</td><td>Titicaca</td><td>89.3 ± 5.65 a</td><td>16 ± 1.29 b</td><td>5.4 ± 0.29 b</td><td>4.3 ± 1.12 c</td><td>216.9 ± 24.83 b</td><td>0.6 ± 0.13 a</td></tr><tr><td>Puno</td><td>89.3 ± 5.62 a</td><td>16.8 ± 1.34 a</td><td>5.6 ± 0.25 b</td><td>4.2 ± 0.36 c</td><td>248.5 ± 30.63 a</td><td>0.5 ± 0.2 ab</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q4</td><td>86.4 ± 7.34 b</td><td>16.6 ± 1.02 a</td><td>5.8 ± 0.29 a</td><td>5.1 ± 1.02 b</td><td>254.2 ± 25.93 a</td><td>0.5 ± 0.11 b</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q5</td><td>89.4 ± 5.6 a</td><td>16.3 ± 0.94 ab</td><td>5.2 ± 0.48 c</td><td>5.6 ± 0.55 a</td><td>249.6 ± 38.35 a</td><td>0.4 ± 0.14 b</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 24). For each experimental year and cropping system, means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different. ** denotes *p* < 0.01, *** denotes *p* < 0.001; ns = not significant. AFS and SCS are agroforestry and sole cropping systems, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using R programming language.

Unlike salinity, all other factors significantly affected phosphorus content in quinoa seeds, with the cropping system contributing most to this variation (F = 34.8, *p* < 0.001). In addition, the interactions CS × EC, CS × Variety, EC × Variety, and CS × EC × Variety significantly influenced this parameter (Table 6). Remarkably, over both experimental seasons, seeds phosphorus content increased under saline irrigation in AFS, contrary to SCS (Table S2). Seed potassium content significantly decreased by salinity (*p* < 0.05) and variety (*p* < 0.001) across both cropping systems. Substantial differences in seeds sodium content between AFS and SCS (33.2 vs. 27.2, *p* < 0.01) were observed (Table 6). Notably, this parameter was 20% higher under saline irrigation in SCS over 2021 (Table S2). Under saline irrigation, the ratio K/Na was 6.5% and 17.4% higher compared to the control in AFS over 2020 and 2021, respectively (Table S2). Titicaca averaged a low K/Na ratio (24) while Puno, ICBA-Q4, and ICBA-Q5 did not exhibit any remarkable differences (Table 6).

<table><caption>**Table 6.** Mineral composition of quinoa seeds at harvest.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>P</th><th>K</th><th>Na</th><th>K/Na Ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">F</td><td>Year</td><td>7.6 **</td><td>0.7 ns</td><td>1.6 ns</td><td>2.9 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS</td><td>34.8 ***</td><td>3.8 ns</td><td>7.5 **</td><td>12.3 ***</td></tr><tr><td>EC</td><td>0.9 ns</td><td>5.4 *</td><td>0.1 ns</td><td>1 ns</td></tr><tr><td>Variety</td><td>8.4 ***</td><td>31.4 ***</td><td>1.8 ns</td><td>6.2 ***</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC</td><td>18.5 ***</td><td>0.6 ns</td><td>0.5 ns</td><td>1.3 ns</td></tr><tr><td>CS × Variety</td><td>4.3 **</td><td>1.9 ns</td><td>0 ns</td><td>0.4 ns</td></tr><tr><td>EC × Variety</td><td>7.8 ***</td><td>1.6 ns</td><td>3.8 *</td><td>4.8 **</td></tr><tr><td>CS × EC × Variety</td><td>7.6 ***</td><td>1.8 ns</td><td>0.1 ns</td><td>0.2 ns</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Year</td><td>2020</td><td>0.067 ± 0.007 a</td><td>1.4 ± 0.18 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>31.7 ± 9.74 a</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>0.065 ± 0.006 b</td><td>1.4 ± 0.17 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>28.8 ± 8.61 a</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 6. Cont.**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>P</th><th>K</th><th>Na</th><th>K/Na Ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">CS</td><td>AFS</td><td>0.069 ± 0.008 a</td><td>1.4 ± 0.2 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 b</td><td>33.2 ± 9.87 a</td></tr><tr><td>SCS</td><td>0.063 ± 0.004 b</td><td>1.4 ± 0.14 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.02 a</td><td>27.2 ± 7.6 b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">EC</td><td>EC1</td><td>0.066 ± 0.004 a</td><td>1.4 ± 0.13 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>29.4 ± 6.52 a</td></tr><tr><td>EC2</td><td>0.065 ± 0.009 a</td><td>1.4 ± 0.2 b</td><td>0.1 ± 0.02 a</td><td>31.1 ± 11.37 a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Varieties</td><td>Titicaca</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>1.3 ± 0.14 d</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>24 ± 5.51 b</td></tr><tr><td>Puno</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>1.5 ± 0.17 b</td><td>0.1 ± 0.02 a</td><td>32.3 ± 12.44 a</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q4</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 b</td><td>1.6 ± 0.07 a</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>33.4 ± 8.34 a</td></tr><tr><td>ICBA-Q5</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>1.3 ± 0.09 c</td><td>0.1 ± 0.01 a</td><td>31 ± 6.57 a</td></tr></tbody></table>

Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 24). For each experimental year and cropping system, means followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different. * denotes *p* < 0.05, ** denotes *p* < 0.01, *** denotes *p* < 0.001; ns = not significant. AFS and SCS are agroforestry and sole cropping systems, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using R programming language.

## 2.5. Correlation Matrix and Principal Component Analysis

The correlation matrix exhibited more significant correlations among the evaluated quinoa parameters in SCS than in AFS (Figure 2). Indeed, quinoa dry matter, grain yield, water productivity, and seeds contents of fat and total sugar were significantly correlated with more parameters in SCS than in AFS. Under agroforestry conditions, the grain yield was correlated with the dry matter (r = 0.90), crop water productivity (r = 0.49), mineral content (r = 0.45), and grains sugar content (r = 0.34). On the other hand, under monocropping conditions, the grain yield was significantly correlated with the dry matter (r = 0.88), harvest index (r = 0.29), thousand-kernel weight (r = 0.35), crop water productivity (r = 0.84), seeds contents of total sugar (r = 0.70), and phosphorus (r = 0.41). Furthermore, quinoa water productivity was only significantly correlated with the grain yield and the grains sugar content (r = 0.38) in AFS, whereas, under SCS conditions, it was significantly correlated to grain yield, mineral content (r = 0.31), total sugar (r = 0.71), potassium (r = 0.29), and phosphorus (r = 0.56).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>(b) Sole cropping system</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Figure 2.** Person's correlation matrix for the monitored parameters in agroforestry (a) and sole crop systems (b). Values in the matrix represent Pearson's correlation coefficient. *, **, and *** indicate the significance of the correlation coefficient at *p* < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. The matrix graphical representation was carried out using the corrplot package of R programming language.

The first plane of the PCA explained 44.5% of the data variability (Figure 3). Such a variability is significant since it is greater than the reference value of 23.7% (Husson, Lê, and Pagès 2017). Grain yield, quinoa water productivity, and seeds content of total sugar mostly
contributed to the construction of the first axis of the PCA. The cumulative contribution of those three variables for the construction of the first PCA dimension amounted to 40.8%. Among all the evaluated parameters, only the seeds content in saponin, sodium, fat, and gross cellulose were negatively correlated to the first dimension of the PCA. However, the correlations between the seeds contents in fat and gross cellulose with the first dimension were not significant. Concerning the second component, it was mainly explained by the grain yield, thousand-kernel weight, seeds total sugar content, seeds potassium content, seeds mineral matter content, and the quinoa water productivity. Grain yield, thousand-kernel weight, and quinoa water productivity were positively correlated with the second dimension of the PCA. However, the seeds content in potassium and mineral matter were negatively correlated with the second dimension of the PCA. Furthermore, the first plane of the PCA contrasted with the cropping systems and the salinity levels. Indeed, quinoa plants grown under the lowest salinity level (C1) resulted in the highest levels of grain yield, dry matter, thousand-kernel weight, and quinoa water productivity. In contrast, the plants grown under C2 conditions recorded the highest level of seed fat content.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** PCA-biplot projection of individuals (black points), factors (red points), and variables (blue arrows) on the main plan for the investigated parameters. The plot was designed with the "Factoextra" package of R programming language.</figcaption></figure>

**3. Discussion**

**3.1. Quinoa Growth Parameters at Full Flowering Stage**

Our findings clearly show that saline irrigation significantly influenced all the in-
vestigated growth parameters of quinoa (Table 1). This result is in line with the authors
of [63,64], who found that increasing salinity irrigation water decreased the morphological
and physiological traits. Furthermore, the reduced root development in AFS (–11.8%)
suggests that quinoa does not compete with pomegranate for nutrients and water. In
contrast, when grown alone, quinoa developed its roots more extensively, likely to better
compete for the limited water and nutrients caused by salinity. The slight increase in
TDM with AFS contrasts with Ben Zineb et al. (2022) [65], who specified that dry matter
production at the flowering stage of barley, durum wheat, and chickpea was significantly
lower in AFS than SCS. Meanwhile, LDM increased by close to three times in AFS, whereas
SLA was 66.6% lower in AFS, maintaining an LA significantly equivalent between AFS
and SCS. In our study, quinoa developed thicker and tougher leaves to adapt to shade
caused by pomegranate trees. This finding is well confirmed by a lower root/shoot ratio in AFS compared to SCS. Root to shoot describes the relative biomass allocation between the roots and the aboveground parts (shoots). Plants with a low root-to-shoot ratio invest more in shoot growth to capture light for photosynthesis. In this sense, ref. [66] reported that the PAR was the most limiting factor in almond-cereal agroforestry since the shade trees may strongly affect the physiology of the undergrown crop [67]. Regarding plant height variation, no significant differences were observed between AFS and SCS. Conversely, ref. [41] asserted that this parameter was 12% significantly higher for quinoa intercropped with olive trees than sole quinoa.

## 3.2. *Grain Yield and Related Yields Components*

The results demonstrate that increasing salinity from 1.12 dS m⁻¹ to 10.5 dS m⁻¹ led to significant reductions in all parameters, except in the harvest index, across both cropping systems and experimental years. Notably, the losses were more significant in SCS compared to AFS. These outcomes corroborate the findings of [41] regarding quinoa intercropped with olive trees under supplemental irrigation at a salinity level of 6 dS.m⁻¹. They reported that quinoa grain yield and dry matter were significantly lower in the agroforestry system (AFS) by 45% and 49%, respectively, compared to the sole cropping system (SCS). On the other hand, high salinity levels in irrigation water increased the harvest index by 11.5% when quinoa varieties were intercropped with pomegranate trees. Furthermore, the impact of salinity on all parameters was quinoa genotype dependent. Titicaca was the variety most affected by salinity, especially during the first experimental season, whereas ICBA-Q5 exhibited the lowest percentage of loss in most parameters. This finding aligns with [68], who demonstrated that increasing salinity decreased all yield and yield-related components of quinoa (cv. Titicaca).

The substantial reductions in the previous parameters due to salinity in SCS compared to AFS can be attributed to the high potential of trees in mitigating abiotic stresses such as drought and salinity. Although trees and crops may compete for scarce resources when they coexist at the same time and space, they can also assist each other through facilitation or complementarity. In addition, moderate shading and evapotranspiration from trees can improve the microclimate by reducing air temperatures and atmospheric evaporative demand [29,31,69]. Agroforestry improves soil structure and fertility by increasing organic matter and stimulating microbial activity [35,70], leading to improved nutrient cycling and greater nutrient availability for crops [38]. This can help plants cope with saline conditions by providing them with the necessary nutrients to maintain growth and productivity. Furthermore, in AFS, water and nutrient acquisition by crops may be facilitated by the trees' hydraulic lift mechanism (HL). This process involves the redistribution of water and nutrients from deeper, wetter soil layers to the stressed upper layers, thereby enhancing the absorption of these resources by crop roots [27,42,71].

Likewise, the 11.5% increase in the harvest index under saline irrigation, observed when quinoa varieties were intercropped with pomegranate trees, implies a greater allocation of the plant's biomass to the harvested parts. This aligns with the observed higher specific leaf area (SLA) and lower root-to-shoot ratio under saline irrigation, leading to optimal photosynthesis and seed filling under saline conditions. Additionally, the reduction in quinoa water productivity (QWP) due to salinity (10.5 dS m⁻¹) was 23.9% in AFS compared to 48.6% in SCS, demonstrating greater water use efficiency in AFS. Furthermore, there were strong and positive correlations between QWP and quinoa grain yield (r = 0.84, *p* < 0.001), total dry matter (r = 0.72, *p* < 0.001), and total kernel weight (r = 0.36, *p* < 0.05).

## 3.3. *Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)*

The foremost advantage of agroforestry (AFS) dwells in its potential to enhance land productivity by utilizing resources more efficiently than sole cropping system (SCS). Indeed, AFS typically demonstrates a higher land equivalent ratio (LER) than monoculture crops or tree orchards. In our experiment, despite the low grain yields, LER was always more than 1,
corroborating the greater efficiency of agroforestry systems rather than sole stands [72,73]. It averaged from 1.86 to 2.21, reflecting that productivity was 86 to 121% higher in AFS than in SCS. The LER of the entire system was positively influenced by the salinity level of the irrigation water (10.5 dS.m⁻¹) and the specific quinoa variety associated with the pomegranate trees. It was 20% higher under saline water and reached 2.21 when associated with the ICBA-Q5 variety.

LER<sub>Quinoa</sub> was significantly higher by 36.2% under saline conditions (10.5 dS.m<sup>-1</sup>) compared to the control (EC1 = 1.12 dS m<sup>-1</sup>). LER<sub>Quinoa</sub> ranged from 1.08 to 1.15, indicating that quinoa component contributed between 108% and 115% to the total productivity. Likewise, the LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub> varied significantly from 0.79 (P-Puno) to 1.11 (P-ICBA-Q5), indicating pomegranate's contribution of between 79 and 111% to the global production. The partial LER<sub>Quinoa</sub> consistently exceeded 1, whereas the LER<sub>Pomegranate</sub> was below 1, except when pomegranate was paired with ICBA-Q5. This indicates that agroforestry was more beneficial to quinoa than to pomegranate when associated with Puno, Titicaca, and ICBA-Q4 varieties. This result supports the findings of Abidi et al. (2024) [41] when intercropping quinoa varieties with olive trees under supplemental saline irrigation (6 dS m<sup>-1</sup>). They found an LER averaging from 1.57 to 2.07, with overall productivity being 57% to 107% higher in the agroforestry system compared to monoculture. When intercropping quinoa with pomegranate, even under more saline conditions (10.5 dS m<sup>-1</sup>), LER was higher, and the overall productivity in agroforestry ranged from 86% to 121%. This comparison showed that under saline conditions, intercropping quinoa with pomegranate seems more beneficial for the whole system than intercropping quinoa with olive trees. This finding may be related to the high salt tolerance of pomegranate comparatively to olive trees.

Similar findings were reported [74–78] when growing other annual crops within fruit-tree-based agroforestry. This outcome resulted in a lower yield reduction due to salinity in agroforestry systems compared to sole cropping systems, highlighting the significant role of agroforestry in mitigating abiotic stresses such as salinity and drought [20,70,79–82]. In fact, saline irrigation may provide a viable solution to water scarcity when intercropping salt-resistant crops like quinoa with pomegranate trees, as both can endure moderately saline conditions. As reported by Hussin et al. (2023) [83], quinoa has an exceptional ability to regulate soil salinity thanks to its osmotic adjustment role. Additionally, agroforestry creates a preferred microclimate for the development of quinoa by reducing evapotranspiration, increasing soil structure and fertility, and enhancing nutrient and water availability [84].

Pomegranate-based agroforestry is expected to play a pivotal role under moderate saline conditions. Pomegranate is tolerant to moderate salinity. However, integrating eco-resilient crops like quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa*, Willd.) into pomegranate-based agroforestry in saline regions represents an innovative step to enhance the salt-affected land efficiency by increasing the global LER up to 1. Our findings show that this new model of agroforestry is quinoa genotype dependent as it was profitable to pomegranate exclusively when it was associated with ICBA-Q5 (LER equal to 1.114). Indeed, the Pomegranate-ICBA-Q5 combination resulted in an increase in the average pomegranate yield by 13% and 10% compared to the pomegranate orchard under EC1 and EC2 conditions, respectively. We can suggest that under saline conditions, pomegranate trees can leverage the high potential of intercropped halophytes like quinoa to remove regulate soil salinity, thus improving pomegranate yield.

### 3.4. *Quinoa Seeds Quality Profile*

Quinoa exhibits exceptional nutritional properties, including high levels of minerals, protein, fats, and dietary fiber [47,53,85]. Although it thrives well in salt-afflicted areas, its nutritional components remain varying with salinity levels, genetic diversity, pedoclimatic conditions, and their interactions [86]. Furthermore, numerous studies also provide strong evidence for the potential benefits of species intercropping in enhancing crop quality [87]. In our study, intercropping quinoa with pomegranate resulted in a significant increase in the average seed contents in mineral (+9.5%), protein (+9%), and total sugar (+11.3%).
This result aligns with recent findings by [41], demonstrating a 4% increase in the protein content of quinoa seeds in olive-based agroforestry compared to sole cropping systems. On the other hand, the reduction observed in the average total sugar under saline irrigation compared to the control was more pronounced in SCS (–19.2%) than in AFS (–5.6%). This is likely explained by the role of halophyte-based agroforestry in mitigating salinity pressures on photosynthates’ accumulation and nutrient uptake.

Saponins, antinutritional secondary metabolites from the glycoside family, are naturally produced by plants in response to abiotic stress [88–90]. These compounds endow quinoa with substantial nutraceutical potential, offering industrial and medicinal applications while also providing protection against pathogen attacks [55]. The quantity and quality of saponins in seeds are primarily determined by various environmental factors such as water availability, salinity levels, soil fertility, shading intensity, and genetic variability. In our experiment, seed saponin content varied based on the salinity level of irrigation water, cropping system, quinoa cultivar, and their interactions. The results indicated that the average seed saponin content was 18.2% lower in AFS compared to SCS. Moreover, salinity significantly impacted saponin content in AFS, unlike in SCS, across both seasons. Saponin content also varied among quinoa cultivars, ranging from 0.4% in ICBA-Q5 to 0.6% in Titicaca. These significant differences are consistent with findings by [91,92], which highlighted that saponin content is primarily a genotype-dependent trait, though it also fluctuates with abiotic stresses like salinity. Our research confirms the pivotal role of agroforestry in attenuating abiotic stresses like salinity [2,81], which can stimulate saponin synthesis [93]. AFS creates a favorable microclimate for intercropped plants, reducing competition for water and nutrients by decreasing evapotranspiration and enhancing nutrient cycling. This ensures the availability of water and nutrients for the plants. Pardon et al., 2017 [94] noted the potential of middle-aged to mature tree rows to increase soil organic carbon stocks and nutrient availability for crops in AFS. In this sense, Mouttaqi et al., 2023 [95] reported that organic amendments significantly reduced the saponin content at different salinity levels. This effect can be attributed to the amendments’ role in reducing the salinity-induced stress [96]. Additionally, Diacono and Montemurro, 2015 [97] indicated that organic amendments influence the physicochemical properties of soil due to the flocculation of minerals to organic polymers.

The cropping system contributed most to the variation in phosphorus (F = 34.8 ***), sodium (F = 7.5 **), and the K/Na ratio (F = 12.3 ***), while quinoa variety significantly affected potassium (F = 31.4 ***). Phosphorus and the K/Na ratio were significantly increased in AFS by 8.4% and 22%, respectively. Under saline irrigation (10.5 dS m⁻¹), phosphorus significantly decreased by 9% and 6% in SCS over 2020 and 2021, respectively. Unlike sodium, all tailored parameters were quinoa genotype dependent [98]. Considering the ratio K/Na, Titicaca averaged a low K/Na ratio (24) while Puno, ICBA-Q4, and ICBA-Q5 did not exhibit any remarkable differences. These outcomes confirm the quinoa resistance to salinity [45,49,64]. On the other hand, in experiments where quinoa was conducted as sole crop, ref. [95] reported a high accumulation of sodium on quinoa leaves under high-salinity conditions, resulting in an increase in the K/Na ratio. Oumasst et al. (2022) [99] observed that sodium content increased tenfold under 10 dS m⁻¹ of irrigation water salinity compared to 0.9 dS m⁻¹ salinity level. Conversely, ref. [100] reported an increase by 60% in sodium and 65% in potassium, without any significant effect on the ratio of K/Na, under high-salinity conditions (17 dS m⁻¹) compared to the control (5 dS m⁻¹). Additionally, ref. [83] reported that quinoa, as a facultative halophyte, displays an effective control mechanism for xylem Na⁺ loading and superior K⁺ retention, resulting in a higher K⁺/Na⁺ ratio compared to staple crops [101]. Importantly, incorporating quinoa into pomegranate-based agroforestry systems can effectively alleviate the adverse effects of salinity on the mineral content of quinoa seeds. This approach improves soil structure and fertility, enhances water availability, and filters groundwater, thereby reducing salts accumulation in the soil and boosting seed mineral nutrient content.
### 3.5. *Correlation Matrix and Principal Components Analysis*

The findings of the Pearson correlation matrix underscore the nuanced influence of agricultural systems on quinoa cultivation outcomes. Sole cropping systems (SCSs) appear to foster stronger correlations among quinoa parameters, potentially indicating a more controlled environment with less competition from other plant species compared to agroforestry systems (AFSs).

Concerning the PCA, it contrasts the effects of different cropping systems and salinity levels on quinoa cultivation. For instance, quinoa plants under the lowest salinity level (C1) exhibited higher levels of grain yield, dry matter, thousand-kernel weight, and water productivity. Conversely, plants under C2 conditions showed the highest levels of seed fat content. This highlights how environmental factors like salinity can significantly influence quinoa's agronomic and nutritional characteristics. These findings underscore the complexity of factors influencing quinoa cultivation and its yield and nutritional outcomes. Understanding these relationships can inform agricultural practices, such as optimizing cropping systems and managing environmental stressors like salinity, to enhance both yield and nutritional quality.

## 4. Materials and Methods

### 4.1. *Experimental Site*

This research was conducted over two consecutive years (2020 and 2021) in the north-eastern region of Morocco, in a 15-year-old pomegranate grove. The field experiment was based in the Boughriba's rural commune in Berkane province (34°82'98'' N 2°45'73'' W, 462 m from sea level) (Figure 4).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Location of the field experiment in the northeastern region of Morocco. The map was generated using QGIS (version 3.34.0).</figcaption></figure>

The soil has a silt loamy texture in the top 0–30 cm layer. In 2020 and 2021, the organic matter content averaged 2.90 and 3.04, respectively. In 2021, the soil was highly rich in phosphorus and potassium, but had lower levels of nitrogen, calcium, and magnesium than in 2020. The electrical conductivities averages were 1.22 and 0.88 in 2020 and 2021, respectively (Table 7).
<table><caption>**Table 7.** Initial soil physical and chemical properties in the experimental site in 2020 and 2021 (0–30 cm).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">2020</th><th colspan="2">2021</th></tr><tr><th>SCS</th><th>AFS</th><th>SCS</th><th>AFS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Texture</td><td>Silt loam</td><td>Silt loam</td><td>Silt loam</td><td>Silt loam</td></tr><tr><td>ECe (mS cm<sup>-1</sup>, 25 °C)</td><td>1.35</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>OM (%)</td><td>2.78</td><td>3.01</td><td>2.75</td><td>3.32</td></tr><tr><td>pH</td><td>7.38</td><td>7.12</td><td>7.35</td><td>7.13</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> (ppm)</td><td>3.75</td><td>4.35</td><td>3.98</td><td>5.12</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O (ppm)</td><td>228</td><td>265</td><td>239</td><td>2.85</td></tr><tr><td>NO<sub>3</sub> (ppm)</td><td>2.45</td><td>3.12</td><td>2.65</td><td>3.32</td></tr><tr><td>Ca (mg 100 g<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>658</td><td>725</td><td>665</td><td>687</td></tr><tr><td>Mg (mg 100 g<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>129</td><td>135</td><td>131</td><td>142</td></tr><tr><td>Actif limestone (%)</td><td>8.28</td><td>8.22</td><td>8.25</td><td>8.18</td></tr></tbody></table>

AFS: agroforestry system; SCS: sole crop system. Soil analysis was performed at the laboratory of the National Institute for Agricultural Research in Rabat, Morocco.

The climate is typically semiarid with an irregular annual rainfall averaging 325 mm over a 29-year period (CV = 28%). The average minimum and maximum temperatures were 11.32 and 23.65 °C, respectively (Figure 5a).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Gaussian climate diagrams illustrating the monthly precipitation patterns alongside mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures recorded during 2020 (b) and 2021 (c), in comparison to the</figcaption></figure>
historical 29-year mean (1991–2019) data (a). The yellow bars represent the quinoa water requirements (ETc) throughout the growing seasons, spanning February to June for both experimental seasons.

In 2020 and 2021, the total annual rainfall was 211.90 mm and 273.30 mm, respectively. During the quinoa growing season (from February to June), the corresponding values were 102.70 mm and 202 mm. Comparatively to the long-term average (146.86 mm), we observed a variation of -30% and +37% in cumulative rainfall during the quinoa growing season for 2020 and 2021, respectively. In 2020, the mean air temperature was 16.54 °C, while in 2021, it averaged 15.67 °C. The highest absolute temperatures occurred in June for both years, reaching 27.80 °C and 25.40 °C, respectively. The corresponding absolute minimum values were recorded in February, with 6.50 °C and 5.20 °C, respectively.

As depicted by Figure 5a, drought conditions commonly occur in May and June during the quinoa growing season. Nonetheless, in 2020, quinoa experienced a highly uneven distribution of rainfall with 0.00% in February, 65.7% in March and April, and 34.10% in May and June of total rainfall, while in 2021, quinoa received 0.3%, 93.6%, and 6% of total rainfall during the same periods. Based on our study, the three periods correspond to the main quinoa growing stages: plant establishment, panicle emergence–flowering, and grain filling–maturity. Furthermore, the crop water requirements (ETc) underscore the persistent drought conditions throughout the entire quinoa growing season in 2020 (Figure 5b) as well as during both the initial and the final stages in 2021 (Figure 5b,c).

## 4.2. Plant Material and Experimental Layout

In our experiment, the density of pomegranate trees (*Punica granatum* L.) was 278 trees ha⁻¹ with a regular 6 m × 6 m plantation design. Before the experiment, the inter-rows remained uncultivated, and the pomegranate trees received occasional gravity-fed irrigation to supplement the rainfall supply. We tested four quinoa cultivars (Puno, Titicaca, ICBA-Q5, and ICBA-Q4) characterized by short growing cycles (90 to 120 days), good performance, and large-scale adaptation under semiarid conditions in Morocco [102–104].

During both experimental seasons (2020 and 2021), quinoa genotypes were inter-cropped with pomegranate trees following a consistent experimental layout. We evaluated the performance of two pomegranate agroforestry systems (AFSs) under two saline irrigation levels, with respective average electrical conductivity (EC) values of 1.12 dS m⁻¹ and 10.5 dS m⁻¹. The irrigation water used was issued from two available groundwater resources, Tagma's source in Tafoghalt village was used as a control treatment, and water drilling was used as a salt treatment. We compared agroforestry systems to corresponding sole crops (SCSs) and pure pomegranate orchard (OR) used as controls. The (AFS) and (OR) were conducted under the two water regimes in the same pomegranate grove. The sole quinoa cultivars were sown in an adjacent open field plot for each irrigation water salinity level, 200 m apart to avoid any interactions between trees and sole quinoa systems. Both AFS and SCS followed a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. For AFS, quinoa varieties were sown on either side of the middle pomegranate tree row (Figure 6). In the pomegranate grove, each water regime was allocated to 15 subplots, each covering 144 m² (12 m × 12 m). Among these subplots, 12 were designated for agroforestry systems while the remaining 3 subplots were assigned to pomegranate orchards. The quinoa rows were oriented east–west, parallel to the pomegranate tree rows. Similarly, for each water regime, 12 subplots of 36 m² (6 m × 6 m) were dedicated to the sole crop systems (SCSs). Two inter-pomegranate rows and an empty space (12 m) were left between the two regimes in AFS and in SCS, respectively, to avoid susceptible underground interactions between quinoa varieties conducted under different regimes. The total area assigned to the experiment was 8720 m².
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Experimental layout showing (a) five rows of quinoa plants spaced by 0.5 m and inter-cropped with pomegranate trees on the two sides of the median row of pomegranate trees in the unit plot. An empty space of 6 m was left between two adjacent blocks. A 2 m distance was left between the outer quinoa strip and the tree lines. (b) Quinoa–pomegranate-based agroforestry where quinoa rows were parallel to the pomegranate trees, with an east–west orientation. (c) Quinoa rows sown within a sole crop system (SCS), 200 m apart from the AFS grove.</figcaption></figure>

In both AFS and SCS, quinoa varieties were meticulously hand-sown, with an inter-row and intra-plants spacing of 0.5 m and 0.20 m, respectively, using an equal sowing rate of 5 kg ha⁻¹. In the AFS, a deliberate 2 m gap was maintained between pomegranate tree and quinoa plants. In 2020, quinoa was sown on 23 February and harvested between 1 and 8 July. In 2021, sowing took place on 20 February while the harvest spanned from 3 to 8 July. Following traditional practices, local organic manure (10 t ha⁻¹) was applied, and weeds were manually managed. A supplemental drip irrigation was adopted, with 2 L h⁻¹ integral drippers spaced 0.3 m apart. The crop water requirement was estimated based on Formula (1).

$$ ETC = K_c \times ET_0 \qquad (1) $$

where k_c is the quinoa crop coefficient factor, being 0.5 at plant establishment and 1 during flowering and seed filling [105]. ET_0 is the reference evapotranspiration determined using the Penman–Monteith formula [106], based on climatic parameters collected from nearby local meteorological station.

The total volume of supplement irrigation water was estimated to 152 mm and 175 mm during the first and second cropping seasons, respectively. The corresponding total amount of water received by quinoa varieties (rainwater + irrigation) was estimated to be 254.6 and 377.4 mm, respectively. Given the 200 m average distance between the AFS and SCS plots, quinoa varieties in both systems received the same amount of rainfall. The crop coefficient (K_c) values for quinoa were consistent across both systems, whether grown solely or intercropped with pomegranate trees. We observed a slight advancement in quinoa growth within the AFS compared to the SCS, but the K_c remained unchanged, being 0.5 during plant establishment and 1.0 during flowering and seed filling. For ETC calculations, we relied on the ET_0 value from the local meteorological station. Consequently, ETC values for all treatments were similar.
### 4.3. Field Measurements and Sampling

At the full floraison stage, 10 quinoa plants from each unit plot (5 on each side of the median pomegranate row), were entirely sampled (with root) in AFS. Similarly, in SCS, 10 rooted plants were randomly sampled from the middle of each elementary plot. The average plant height was previously determined, and root and shoot organs were separately weighted. Then, they were oven dried (70 °C, 48 h) until a constant weight of dry matter was reached. The measured parameters were root dry matter (RDM), leaf dry matter (LDM), total dry matter (TDM, leaf area (LA), specific leaf area (SLA), and root-to-shoot ratio. Specific leaf area (SLA) is calculated as the ratio of the leaf area to the leaf dry mass (SLA = leaf area/leaf dry mass). The root-to-shoot ratio is calculated as the ratio of the dry mass of the roots to the dry mass of the shoots (root-to-shoot ratio = root dry mass/shoot dry mass). These measurements were exclusively performed in 2021 due to the limited mobility during the corona virus lockdown in 2020.

At quinoa maturity, in each elementary plot, sampling was randomly performed over 3 m² on either side of the median row of pomegranate trees, avoiding the borders. Afterward, quinoa plants were threshed, sorted by organ, oven dried (70 °C, 48 h), and weighed to determine the total aboveground biomass, the grain yield, and the thousand-kernel weight. The harvest index was calculated as the ratio between the grain yield and total aboveground biomass. Similarly, in the sole crop system (SCS), a sample of 2 m² per elementary plot was served to determine all the monitored parameters. Moreover, upon reaching maturity, three pomegranate trees were meticulously selected from the central area of each plot unit to mitigate any border influences. Subsequently, they were handpicked to precisely evaluate the pomegranate yield per tree.

### 4.4. Quinoa Water Productivity (QWP) and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)

Quinoa water productivity was calculated as the ratio between the obtained quinoa yield and the total amount of water supplied, encompassing both natural precipitations and supplemental irrigation applied throughout the quinoa growth cycle. To assess land use efficiency, we evaluated the land equivalent ratio (LER) as the relative land area required for sole crops and trees to achieve the same total yield as [107]. LER was calculated as the sum of relative yields in agroforestry compared to the sole crop and the orchard tree yields (Formulas (2)–(4)).

$$LER_{AFS} = LER_{Olive} + LER_{Quinoa} \qquad (2)$$

$$LER_{Olive} = Olive\ yield_{AFS} / Olive\ yield \qquad (3)$$

$$LER_{Quinoa} = Quinoa\ yield_{AFS} / Quinoa\ yield_{SCS} \qquad (4)$$

The LER indicates higher (or lower) productivity for an agroforestry system (AFS) than the corresponding orchard (OR) and sole crop (SCS) when its value is above (or below) 1. When this value is equal to 1, the agroforestry system has no significant impact on land productivity [108].

### 4.5. Biochemical Analysis of Quinoa Seeds

#### 4.5.1. Grain Protein, Fat, Gross Cellulose, and Mineral Contents

The analysis of chemical and biochemical parameters was performed at the laboratory of the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) in Rabat. The seed's protein content was calculated using Formula (5), considering that most proteins contain 16% nitrogen [109].

$$\text{Protein (\% dry matter)} = \text{N content (\% dry matter)} \times 6.25 \qquad (5)$$

where 6.25 is the conversion factor used to transform nitrogen into protein. Total nitrogen content was analyzed according to the Kjeldahl procedure (AOAC, 945.18).

The fat seed content was determined using a Soxhlet extractor, while the cellulose content was performed through the application of the Weende analytical procedure (Weende,
1993). Regarding the grain mineral content analysis, we used the protocol as described by [110]. The mineral matter was determined after the calcination of the dry samples at 550 °C.

### 4.5.2. Total Saponin Content

Saponins were isolated utilizing a slightly modified version of the protocol described in reference [111]. Briefly, 5 g of quinoa seed powder were encased in a filter paper cartridge for defatting using the Soxhlet apparatus with hexane (1:10 *w/v*) as a solvent. Ultrasound-assisted extraction of saponins was performed with methanol (1:10 *w/v*). Extraction was carried out using an ultrasonic probe at 60% amplitude for 15 min (3 cycles of 5 min). The mixture was filtered through Whatman paper N°1. The mixture was centrifuged, and the supernatant was dried under vacuum and then reconstituted in 5 mL of methanol.

The overall saponin content was determined using the modified technique described by [112]. Within this method, 0.25 mL of the saponin extract was combined with 1 mL of a reagent mixture (comprising glacial acetic acid and sulfuric acid in a 1:1 *v/v* ratio) and subjected to vortexing. The mixture was then incubated at 60 °C for 30 min within a thermostatically controlled water bath, followed by cooling in an ice bath. A UV-visible spectrophotometer (VWR International, Radnor, PA, USA) was utilized to measure the absorbance of the sample at 527 nm. Calibration curve preparation involved using oleanolic acid within the concentration range of 0 to 1000 µg mL⁻¹. The expression of the total saponin content was in grams of oleanolic acid equivalent per 100 g of dry weight (DW).

### 4.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the R programming language (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2021) [113]. The additive model of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the effects of the studied factors (years, cropping system, water salinity levels, and quinoa genotypes) on the monitored parameters (agronomic and biochemical parameters). The aov package (version) of R was used for this purpose. The post hoc test was performed using the Student–Newman–Keuls test at 5% level. Pearson's correlation matrix was performed to investigate the strength of the linear relationship between the investigated parameters, with values ranging from –1 (perfect negative correlation) to 1 (perfect positive correlation) and 0 (no linear correlation). The matrix graphical representation was carried out using the corrplot package. Additionally, principal component analysis (PCA) was served to explore the correlation between the traits and evaluate the impact of the factors on the identified correlation patterns. To perform the PCA, the “FactomineR” package was used. The visual representation of the PCA was carried out with the “Factoextra” package, and the factors were projected as supplementary qualitative variables.

## 5. Conclusions

Climate change is amplifying salinization in arid regions, threatening biodiversity as staple crops such as cereals and legumes struggle to thrive under such conditions. This trend is poised to severely affect agricultural productivity, economic yields, and food security, risking vulnerable local populations, thereby exacerbating their instability. We harness the potential of halophyte-based agroforestry to mitigate abiotic stresses, including salinity, by intercropping quinoa with pomegranate trees. We investigate how pomegranate trees' microclimate affects quinoa's agronomic and biochemical traits under saline irrigation. We also evaluated the system's land use efficiency using the land equivalent ratio (LER). Our findings show an LER greater than one, indicating that the quinoa–pomegranate-based agroforestry system may be a potential agroecological solution for enhancing land use efficiency, sustaining agrobiodiversity, improving ecosystem services, and supporting local farmers in vulnerable environments to improve their livelihoods. However, further research is needed to confirm these outcomes. For instance, future studies should consider salinity's impact on soil fertility, economic comparisons between agroforestry and monocropping, optimizing saline irrigation for quinoa's growth cycle and targeting critical
periods during the quinoa growing cycle, and utilizing organic amendments for water retention. Additionally, understanding intercropping cycles of halophytes like quinoa is crucial to avoid competition with companion trees, by avoiding overlap in their needs both spatially and temporally.

Furthermore, under an evolving climate, harnessing the halophyte-based agroforestry's potential in mitigating salt stress in salt-afflicted lands looks promising for future climate smart agriculture and global food security. However, this requires more supportive policies and institutional frameworks to encourage farmer involvement. By integrating these strategies into political agendas, governments can foster a conducive environment for the widespread adoption of agroforestry.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13182543/s1, Figure S1: Seeds contents of mineral, protein, fat, gross cellulose, total sugar, and saponin as affected by irrigation water salinity levels in each cropping system over each experimental season.; Table S1: Effect of irrigation water salinity on Grain yield and yield-related components of quinoa genotypes depending on cropping systems over the experimental seasons; Table S2. Effect of irrigation water salinity on Phophorus, Potassium, Sodium and K/Na ratio according to quinoa genotypes, cropping systems and experimental seasons.

**Author Contributions:** I.A.: Project administration, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation. K.D.: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing. A.A.: Supervision, writing—review and editing. D.B.: Writing—review and editing. A.A.H.S.: Formal analysis, visualization. L.B.: Project administration, resources. H.M.: Resources, writing—review and editing. S.B.A.: Project administration, conceptualization, supervision, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research and the APC were funded by Quinoa4Med project in the framework of PRIMA (Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area) program (Section 2). The project is untitled "Quinoa as a climate-smart crop diversification option for higher income generation from marginal lands in the mediterranean", Project reference number (MEL): 1713. Project Acronym: Quinoa4Med. The national coordinator is Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Sciences.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data are contained within the article.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Yaacoubi Mohammed, director of the Office Régional de Mise en Valeur Agricole de la Moulouya, and the field staff. We are also grateful to Bekkaoui Faouzi, director of the National Institute of Agricultural Research. Moreover, we acknowledge the farmer for his valuable help during the field experiments.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

## References

1. Hopmans, J.W.; Qureshi, A.S.; Kisekka, I.; Munns, R.; Grattan, S.R.; Rengasamy, P.; Ben-Gal, A.; Assouline, S.; Javaux, M.; Minhas, P.S.; et al. Critical Knowledge Gaps and Research Priorities in Global Soil Salinity. In *Advances in Agronomy*; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 169, pp. 1–191.

2. Dagar, J.C.; Gupta, S.R.; Gaur, A. Tree-Based Farming Systems for Improving Productivity and Ecosystem Services in Saline Environments of Dry Regions: An Overview. *Farming Syst.* **2023**, *1*, 100003. [CrossRef]

3. Qadir, M.; Quillérou, E.; Nangia, V.; Murtaza, G.; Singh, M.; Thomas, R.J.; Drechsel, P.; Noble, A.d. Economics of Salt-Induced Land Degradation and Restoration. *Nat. Resour. Forum* **2014**, *38*, 282–295. [CrossRef]

4. Cuevas, J.; Daliakopoulos, I.N.; del Moral, F.; Hueso, J.J.; Tsanis, I.K. A Review of Soil-Improving Cropping Systems for Soil Salinization. *Agronomy* **2019**, *9*, 295. [CrossRef]

5. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Bolan, N.S. Soil Salinity under Climate Change: Challenges for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. *J. Environ. Manag.* **2021**, *280*, 111736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology and the Reconstruction of a Post-COVID-19 Agriculture. *J. Peasant. Stud.* **2020**, *47*, 881–898. [CrossRef]

7. Shabala, S.; Mackay, A. Ion Transport in Halophytes. In *Advances in Botanical Research*; Turkan, I., Ed.; Plant Responses to Drought and Salinity Stress; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 57, pp. 151–199.

8. Zelm, E.; Zhang, Y.; Testerink, C. Salt Tolerance Mechanisms of Plants. *Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.* **2020**, *71*, 403–433. [CrossRef]

9. Xiao, F.; Zhou, H. Plant Salt Response: Perception, Signaling, and Tolerance. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2023**, *13*, 1053699. [CrossRef]
10. Zhou, H.; Shi, H.; Yang, Y.; Feng, X.; Chen, X.; Xiao, F.; Lin, H.; Guo, Y. Insights into Plant Salt Stress Signaling and Tolerance. *J. Genet. Genom.* **2024**, *51*, 16–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Nahar, K.; Alam, M.M.; Bhowmik, P.C.; Hossain, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Ozturk, M.; Fujita, M. Potential Use of Halophytes to Remediate Saline Soils. *BioMed Res. Int.* **2014**, *2014*, 589341. [CrossRef]

12. Hussain, S.; Shaukat, M.; Ashraf, M.; Zhu, C.; Jin, Q.; Zhang, J. Salinity Stress in Arid and Semi-Arid Climates: Effects and Management in Field Crops. In *Climate Change and Agriculture*; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [CrossRef]

13. Ain, Q.T.; Siddique, K.; Bawazeer, S.; Ali, I.; Mazhar, M.; Rasool, R.; Mubeen, B.; Ullah, F.; Unar, A.; Jafar, T.H. Adaptive Mechanisms in Quinoa for Coping in Stressful Environments: An Update. *PeerJ* **2023**, *11*, e14832. [CrossRef]

14. Osakabe, Y.; Osakabe, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.-S.P. Response of Plants to Water Stress. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2014**, *5*, 86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. Morales, A.; Bajgain, P.; Garver, Z.; Maughan, J.; Udall, J. Physiological Responses of *Chenopodium quinoa* to Salt Stress. *Int. J. Plant Physiol. Biochem.* **2011**, *3*, 219–232.

16. Geissler, N.; Hussin, S.; El-Far, M.M.M.; Koyro, H.-W. Elevated Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration Leads to Different Salt Resistance Mechanisms in a C3 (*Chenopodium quinoa*) and a C4 (*Atriplex nummularia*) Halophyte. *Environ. Exp. Bot.* **2015**, *118*, 67–77. [CrossRef]

17. Yang, A.; Akhtar, S.S.; Amjad, M.; Iqbal, S.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Growth and Physiological Responses of Quinoa to Drought and Temperature Stress. *J. Agron. Crop Sci.* **2016**, *202*, 445–453. [CrossRef]

18. Akyol, T.; Yilmaz, O.; Uzilday, B.; Uzilday, R.; Türkan, İ. Plant Response to Salinity: An Analysis of ROS Formation, Signaling, and Antioxidant Defense. *Turk. J. Bot.* **2020**, *44*, 1–13. [CrossRef]

19. Singh, D. Juggling with Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidant Defense System—A Coping Mechanism under Salt Stress. *Plant Stress* **2022**, *5*, 100093. [CrossRef]

20. Mathur, M.; Mathur, P. Restoration of Saline and Sodic Soil Through Using Halophytes as Agroforestry Components. In *Sustainable Management and Conservation of Environmental Resources in India*; Apple Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 311–354, ISBN 978-1-77491-592-9.

21. Kumar, R.; Bhardwaj, A.; Rao, B.; Vishwakarma, A.; Bhatnagar, P.; Patra, S.; Kumar, G.; Kakade, V.; Dinesh, D.; Pande, V.C.; et al. Development of Degraded Ravine Lands of Western India via Sapota (*Achras zapota*) Plantation with Terracing vs. Trenching-on-slope Based Conservation Measures. *Land Degrad. Dev.* **2020**, *32*, 101–111. [CrossRef]

22. Hussain, M.I.; Muscolo, A.; Ahmed, M.; Asghar, M.A.; Al-Dakheel, A.J. Agro-Morphological, Yield and Quality Traits and Interrelationship with Yield Stability in Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.) Genotypes under Saline Marginal Environment. *Plants* **2020**, *9*, 1763. [CrossRef]

23. Cavalcante, E.S.; Lacerda, C.F.; Mesquita, R.O.; de Melo, A.S.; da Silva Ferreira, J.F.; dos Santos Teixeira, A.; Lima, S.C.R.V.; da Silva Sales, J.R.; de Souza Silva, J.; Gheyi, H.R. Supplemental Irrigation with Brackish Water Improves Carbon Assimilation and Water Use Efficiency in Maize under Tropical Dryland Conditions. *Agriculture* **2022**, *12*, 544. [CrossRef]

24. Sollen-Norrlin, M.; Ghaley, B.B.; Rintoul, N.L.J. Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 7001. [CrossRef]

25. Isaac, M.E.; Borden, K.A. Nutrient Acquisition Strategies in Agroforestry Systems. *Plant Soil* **2019**, *444*, 1–19. [CrossRef]

26. Dagar, J.C.; Singh, G.; Gupta, S.R. Sustainable Land-Use Systems for Rehabilitation of Highly Sodic Lands in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of North-Western India: Synthesis of Long-Term Field Experiments. *J. Soil Salin. Water Qual.* **2022**, *14*, 1–14.

27. Alagele, S.M.; Jose, S.; Anderson, S.H.; Udawatta, R.P. Hydraulic Lift: Processes, Methods, and Practical Implications for Society. *Agrofor. Syst.* **2021**, *95*, 641–657. [CrossRef]

28. Fahad, S.; Chavan, S.B.; Chichaghare, A.R.; Uthappa, A.R.; Kumar, M.; Kakade, V.; Pradhan, A.; Jinger, D.; Rawale, G.; Yadav, D.K.; et al. Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 14877. [CrossRef]

29. Kanzler, M.; Böhm, C.; Mirck, J.; Schmitt, D.; Veste, M. Microclimate Effects on Evaporation and Winter Wheat (*Triticum aestivum* L.) Yield within a Temperate Agroforestry System. *Agrofor. Syst.* **2019**, *93*, 1821–1841. [CrossRef]

30. Colmenares, O.M.; Brindis, R.C.; Verduzco, C.V.; Grajales, M.P.; Grajales, M.P.; Gómez, M.U. Horticultural Agroforestry Systems Recommended for Climate Change Adaptation: A Review. *Agric. Rev.* **2020**, *41*, 14–24. [CrossRef]

31. Vaccaro, C.; Six, J.; Schöb, C. Moderate Shading Did Not Affect Barley Yield in Temperate Silvoarable Agroforestry Systems. *Agrofor. Syst.* **2022**, *96*, 799–810. [CrossRef]

32. Kumar, A.; Juyal, R.; Prasad, R. Role of Leguminous Crops in Enhancing Soil Fertility and Their Impact on the Growth and Yield of Companion Crops. *J. Surv. Fish. Sci.* **2022**, *8*, 334–338. [CrossRef]

33. Phiri, A.; Njira, K.; Dixon, A. Comparative Effects of Legume-Based Intercropping Systems Involving Pigeon Pea and Cowpea under Deep-Bed and Conventional Tillage Systems in Malawi. *Agrosystems Geosci. Environ.* **2024**, *7*, e20503. [CrossRef]

34. de Andrade, L.A.; Santos, C.H.B.; Frezarin, E.T.; Sales, L.R.; Rigobelo, E.C. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Agricultural Production. *Microorganisms* **2023**, *11*, 1088. [CrossRef]

35. Tarolli, P.; Luo, J.; Park, E.; Barcaccia, G.; Masin, R. Soil Salinization in Agriculture: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Combining Nature-Based Solutions and Bioengineering. *iScience* **2024**, *27*, 108830. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

36. Bonilla-Findji, O.; Dinesh, D.; Meryl, R. *10 Best Bet Innovations for Adaptation in Agriculture: A Supplement to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines*; CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017.
37. Gupta, S.R.; Dagar, J.; Teketay, D. Agroforestry for Rehabilitation of Degraded Landscapes: Achieving Livelihood and Environmental Security. In *Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes*; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 23–68, ISBN 9789811541353.

38. Kun, Á.; Simon, B.; Zalai, M.; Kolozsvári, I.; Bozán, C.; Jancsó, M.; Körösparti, J.T.; Kovács, G.P.; Gyuricza, C.; Bakti, B. Effect of Mulching on Soil Quality in an Agroforestry System Irrigated with Reused Water. *Agronomy* **2023**, *13*, 1622. [CrossRef]

39. Saqib, M.; Akhtar, J.; Abbas, G.; Murtaza, G. Enhancing Food Security and Climate Change Resilience in Degraded Land Areas by Resilient Crops and Agroforestry. In *Climate Change-Resilient Agriculture and Agroforestry: Ecosystem Services and Sustainability*; Castro, P., Azul, A.M., Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U.M., Eds.; Climate Change Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 283–297, ISBN 978-3-319-75004-0.

40. Dagar, J.C.; Gupta, S.R. Agroforestry Interventions for Rehabilitating Salt-Affected and Waterlogged Marginal Landscapes. In *Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges*—Vol. 2; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Teketay, D., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 111–162, ISBN 9789811568077.

41. Abidi, I.; Daoui, K.; Abouabdillah, A.; Belqadi, L.; Mahyou, H.; Bazile, D.; Douaik, A.; Gaboun, F.; Hassane Sidikou, A.A.; Alaoui, S.B. Quinoa–Olive Agroforestry System Assessment in Semi-Arid Environments: Performance of an Innovative System. *Agronomy* **2024**, *14*, 495. [CrossRef]

42. Bayala, J.; Prieto, I. Water Acquisition, Sharing and Redistribution by Roots: Applications to Agroforestry Systems. *Plant Soil* **2020**, *453*, 17–28. [CrossRef]

43. Nichols, J.D. Trees, Crops and Soil Fertility: Concepts and Research Methods. For. Sci. **2003**, *51*, 91. [CrossRef]

44. Coussement, T.; Maloteau, S.; Pardon, P.; Artru, S.; Ridley, S.; Javaux, M.; Garré, S. A Tree-Bordered Field as a Surrogate for Agroforestry in Temperate Regions: Where Does the Water Go? *Agric. Water Manag.* **2018**, *210*, 198–207. [CrossRef]

45. Langyan, S.; Khan, F.N.; Kumar, A. Advancement in Nutritional Value, Processing Methods, and Potential Applications of Pseudocereals in Dietary Food: A Review. *Food Bioprocess Technol.* **2023**, *17*, 571–590. [CrossRef]

46. Afzal, I.; Haq, M.Z.U.; Ahmed, S.; Hirich, A.; Bazile, D. Challenges and Perspectives for Integrating Quinoa into the Agri-Food System. *Plants* **2023**, *12*, 3361. [CrossRef]

47. Puri, S.; Sarao, L.K.; Kaur, K.; Talwar, A. Nutritional and Quality Analysis of Quinoa Seed Flour Fortified Wheat Biscuits. *Asian Pac. J. Health Sci.* **2020**, *7*, 48–52. [CrossRef]

48. Sampaio, S.L.; Fernandes, Â.; Pereira, C.; Calhelha, R.C.; Sokovic, M.; Santos-Buelga, C.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Nutritional Value, Physicochemical Characterization and Bioactive Properties of the Brazilian Quinoa BRS Piabiru. *Food Funct.* **2020**, *11*, 2969–2977. [CrossRef]

49. Saddiq, M.S.; Wang, X.; Iqbal, S.; Hafeez, M.B.; Khan, S.; Raza, A.; Iqbal, J.; Maqbool, M.M.; Fiaz, S.; Qazi, M.A.; et al. Effect of Water Stress on Grain Yield and Physiological Characters of Quinoa Genotypes. *Agronomy* **2021**, *11*, 1934. [CrossRef]

50. Causin, F.; Bordón, D.; Burrieza, H. Salinity Tolerance Mechanisms during Germination and Early Seedling Growth in *Chenopodium quinoa* Wild. Genotypes with Different Sensitivity to Saline Stress. *Environ. Exp. Bot.* **2020**, *172*, 103995. [CrossRef]

51. Vita, F.; Ghignone, S.; Bazihizina, N.; Rasouli, F.; Sabbatini, L.; Kiani-Pouya, A.; Kiferle, C.; Shabala, S.; Balestrini, R.; Mancuso, S. Early Responses to Salt Stress in Quinoa Genotypes with Opposite Behavior. *Physiol. Plant.* **2021**, *173*, 1392–1420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

52. Hussain, M.I.; Al- Dakheel, A.J.; Reigosa, M.J. Genotypic Differences in Agro-Physiological, Biochemical and Isotopic Responses to Salinity Stress in Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.) Plants: Prospects for Salinity Tolerance and Yield Stability. *Plant Physiol. Biochem.* **2018**, *129*, 411–420. [CrossRef]

53. Angeli, V.; Miguel Silva, P.; Crispim Massuela, D.; Khan, M.W.; Hamar, A.; Khajehei, F.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Piatti, C. Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.): An Overview of the Potentials of the “Golden Grain” and Socio-Economic and Environmental Aspects of Its Cultivation and Marketization. *Foods* **2020**, *9*, 216. [CrossRef]

54. Abbas, G.; Areej, F.; Asad, S.A.; Saqib, M.; Anwar-ul-Haq, M.; Afzal, S.; Murtaza, B.; Amjad, M.; Naeem, M.A.; Akram, M.; et al. Differential Effect of Heat Stress on Drought and Salt Tolerance Potential of Quinoa Genotypes: A Physiological and Biochemical Investigation. *Plants* **2023**, *12*, 774. [CrossRef]

55. Jan, N.; Hussain, S.Z.; Naseer, B.; Bhat, T.A. Amaranth and Quinoa as Potential Nutraceuticals: A Review of Anti-Nutritional Factors, Health Benefits and Their Applications in Food, Medicinal and Cosmetic Sectors. *Food Chem. X* **2023**, *18*, 100687. [CrossRef]

56. Rodríguez Gómez, M.J.; Matías Prieto, J.; Cruz Sobrado, V.; Calvo Magro, P. Nutritional Characterization of Six Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd) Varieties Cultivated in Southern Europe. *J. Food Compos. Anal.* **2021**, *99*, 103876. [CrossRef]

57. Olivera, L.; Best, I.; Paredes, P.; Perez, N.; Chong, L.; Marzano, A.; Olivera, L.; Best, I.; Paredes, P.; Perez, N.; et al. Nutritional Value, Methods for Extraction and Bioactive Compounds of Quinoa. In *Pseudocereals*; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-80355-181-4.

58. Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T.; Moreno-Rojas, J.M. Potential Health Benefits of Plant Food-Derived Bioactive Components: An Overview. *Foods* **2021**, *10*, 839. [CrossRef]

59. Alamri, E.; Amany, B.; Bayomy, H. Quinoa Seeds (*Chenopodium quinoa*): Nutritional Value and Potential Biological Effects on Hyperglycemic Rats. *J. King Saud Univ.-Sci.* **2023**, *35*, 102427. [CrossRef]

60. Sindhu, R.; Khatkar, B.S. Pseudocereals: Nutritional Composition, Functional Properties, and Food Applications. In *Food Bioactives*; Apple Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-0-429-24279-3.
61. Zhou, X.; Yue, T.; Wei, Z.; Yang, L.; Zhang, L.; Wu, B. Evaluation of Nutritional Value, Bioactivity and Mineral Content of Quinoa Bran in China and Its Potential Use in the Food Industry. *Curr. Res. Food Sci.* **2023**, *7*, 100562. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

62. Vilcacundo, R.; Hernández-Ledesma, B. Nutritional and Biological Value of Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.). *Curr. Opin. Food Sci.* **2017**, *14*, 1–6. [CrossRef]

63. Algosaibi, A.; El-Garawany, M.; Badran, A.; Almadini, A.M. Effect of Irrigation Water Salinity on the Growth of Quinoa Plant Seedlings. *J. Agric. Sci.* **2015**, *7*, 205–214. [CrossRef]

64. Beyrami, H.; Rahimian, M.H.; Salehi, M.; Yazdani-Biouki, R. Effect of Different Levels of Irrigation Water Salinity on Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa*) Yield and Yield Components in Spring Planting. *J. Crop Prod.* **2020**, *12*, 111–120. [CrossRef]

65. Ben Zineb, A.; Barkaoui, K.; Karray, F.; Mhiri, N.; Sayadi, S.; Mliki, A.; Gargouri, M. Olive Agroforestry Shapes Rhizosphere Microbiome Networks Associated with Annual Crops and Impacts the Biomass Production under Low-Rainfed Conditions. *Front. Microbiol.* **2022**, *13*, 977797. [CrossRef]

66. Abbasi Surki, A.; Nazari, M.; Fallah, S.; Iranipour, R.; Mousavi, A. The Competitive Effect of Almond Trees on Light and Nutrients Absorption, Crop Growth Rate, and the Yield in Almond-Cereal Agroforestry Systems in Semi-Arid Regions. *Agrofor. Syst.* **2020**, *94*, 1111–1122. [CrossRef]

67. Charbonnier, F.; Roupsard, O.; le Maire, G.; Guillemot, J.; Casanoves, F.; Lacointe, A.; Vaast, P.; Allinne, C.; Audebert, L.; Cambou, A.; et al. Increased Light-Use Efficiency Sustains Net Primary Productivity of Shaded Coffee Plants in Agroforestry System. *Plant Cell Environ.* **2017**, *40*, 1592–1608. [CrossRef]

68. Jamali, S.; Sharifan, H. Investigation the Effect of Different Salinity Levels on Yield and Yield Components of Quinoa (Cv. Titicaca). *J. Water Soil Conserv.* **2018**, *25*, 251–266. [CrossRef]

69. Markwitz, C.; Knohl, A.; Siebicke, L. Evapotranspiration over Agroforestry Sites in Germany. *Biogeosciences* **2020**, *17*, 5183–5208. [CrossRef]

70. Sahu, S.; Gupta, H. Sustainable Agroforestry-Based Approach to Achieve Food Security Through Soil Health. In *Agroforestry to Combat Global Challenges: Current Prospects and Future Challenges*; Jatav, H.S., Rajput, V.D., Minkina, T., Van Hullebusch, E.D., Dutta, A., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; pp. 323–343, ISBN 978-981-9972-82-1.

71. Bogie, N.A.; Bayala, R.; Diedhiou, I.; Conklin, M.H.; Fogel, M.L.; Dick, R.P.; Ghezzehei, T.A. Hydraulic Redistribution by Native Sahelian Shrubs: Bioirrigation to Resist In-Season Drought. *Front. Environ. Sci.* **2018**, *6*, 98. [CrossRef]

72. Wei, W.; Liu, T.; Zhang, S.; Shen, L.; Wang, X.; Li, L.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, W. Root Spatial Distribution and Belowground Competition in an Apple/Ryegrass Agroforestry System. *Agric. Syst.* **2024**, *215*, 103869. [CrossRef]

73. Aldin, M.A.N.; Ahmed, H.A.S.; Ballal, M.E.M.; Farah, A.M. Ziziphus Spina Christifor Sustainable Agroforestry Farming in Arid Land of Khartoum State of Sudan. *J. For. Environ. Sci.* **2023**, *39*, 20–26. [CrossRef]

74. Singh, Y.; Mishra, V.; Arora, S.; Dagar, J.; Lal, K. Restoration of Degraded Sodic Soils through Silvipastoral Systems in Indo-Gangetic Plains. *Land Degrad. Dev.* **2022**, *33*, 1459–1473. [CrossRef]

75. Lehmann, L.M.; Smith, J.; Westaway, S.; Pisanelli, A.; Russo, G.; Borek, R.; Sandor, M.; Gliga, A.; Smith, L.; Ghaley, B.B. Productivity and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food Products. *Sustainability* **2020**, *12*, 5429. [CrossRef]

76. Žalac, H.; Zebec, V.; Ivezić, V.; Herman, G. Land and Water Productivity in Intercropped Systems of Walnut—Buckwheat and Walnut–Barley: A Case Study. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 6096. [CrossRef]

77. Khasanah, N.; van Noordwijk, M.; Slingerland, M.; Sofiyudin, M.; Stomph, D.; Migeon, A.F.; Hairiah, K. Oil Palm Agroforestry Can Achieve Economic and Environmental Gains as Indicated by Multifunctional Land Equivalent Ratios. *Front. Sustain. Food Syst.* **2020**, *3*, 122. [CrossRef]

78. Bai, W.; Sun, Z.; Zheng, J.; Du, G.; Feng, L.; Cai, Q.; Yang, N.; Feng, C.; Zhang, Z.; Evers, J.B.; et al. Mixing Trees and Crops Increases Land and Water Use Efficiencies in a Semi-Arid Area. *Agric. Water Manag.* **2016**, *178*, 281–290. [CrossRef]

79. Mishra, A.K.; Das, R.; George Kerry, R.; Biswal, B.; Sinha, T.; Sharma, S.; Arora, P.; Kumar, M. Promising Management Strategies to Improve Crop Sustainability and to Amend Soil Salinity. *Front. Environ. Sci.* **2023**, *10*, 962581. [CrossRef]

80. Susanto, A.; Harahap, A.; Ek-Ramos, M.J.; Taniwan, S. Dry Land Management Using Agroforestry Systems In Trenggalek Regency, East Java. *Int. J. Sci. Environ. (IJSE)* **2024**, *4*, 1–5. [CrossRef]

81. Yadav, R.K.; Kumar, R.; Singh, A.; Dagar, J.C. Utilization of Saline and Other Poor-Quality Waters to Sustain Agroforestry Production. In *Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa*; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Sileshi, G.W., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 243–271, ISBN 978-981-19460-2-8.

82. Yadav, K.; Aggarwal, N.K.; Singh, A.; Yadav, G.; Yadav, R.K. Long-Term Effect of Sodic Water for Irrigation on Soil Quality and Wheat Yield in Rice-Wheat Cropping System: Soil Quality and Wheat Yield under Sodic Water Irrigation. *J. Soil Salin. Water Qual.* **2024**, *16*, 25–30. [CrossRef]

83. Hussin, S.A.; Ali, S.H.; Lotfy, M.E.; El-Samad, E.H.A.; Eid, M.A.; Abd-Elkader, A.M.; Eisa, S.S. Morpho-Physiological Mechanisms of Two Different Quinoa Ecotypes to Resist Salt Stress. *BMC Plant Biol.* **2023**, *23*, 374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

84. Ngaba, M.J.Y.; Mgelwa, A.S.; Gurmesa, G.A.; Uwiragiye, Y.; Zhu, F.; Qiu, Q.; Fang, Y.; Hu, B.; Rennenberg, H. Meta-Analysis Unveils Differential Effects of Agroforestry on Soil Properties in Different Zonobiomes. *Plant Soil* **2024**, *496*, 589–607. [CrossRef]

85. Agarwal, A.; Rizwana, Tripathi, A.D.; Kumar, T.; Sharma, K.P.; Patel, S.K.S. Nutritional and Functional New Perspectives and Potential Health Benefits of Quinoa and Chia Seeds. *Antioxidants* **2023**, *12*, 1413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Matías, J.; Rodríguez, M.J.; Cruz, V.; Calvo, P.; Granado-Rodríguez, S.; Poza-Viejo, L.; Fernández-García, N.; Olmos, E.; Reguera, M. Assessment of the Changes in Seed Yield and Nutritional Quality of Quinoa Grown under Rainfed Mediterranean Environments. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2023**, *14*, 1268014. [CrossRef]

87. Amassaghrou, A.; Barkaoui, K.; Bouaziz, A.; Alaoui, S.B.; Fatemi, Z.E.A.; Daoui, K. Yield and Related Traits of Three Legume Crops Grown in Olive-Based Agroforestry under an Intense Drought in the South Mediterranean. *Saudi J. Biol. Sci.* **2023**, *30*, 103597. [CrossRef]

88. Zang, Z.; Liang, J.; Yang, Q.; Zhou, N.; Li, N.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Tan, S.; Chen, S.; Tang, Z. An Adaptive Abiotic Stresses Strategy to Improve Water Use Efficiency, Quality, and Economic Benefits of Panax Notoginseng: Deficit Irrigation Combined with Sodium Chloride. *Agric. Water Manag.* **2022**, *274*, 107923. [CrossRef]

89. Ariyanti, N.A.; Latifa, S. Saponins Accumulation and Antimicrobial Activities on Shallot (*Allium cepa* L.) from Marginal Land. *J. AGRO* **2021**, *8*, 188–198. [CrossRef]

90. Ashour, A.S.; El Aziz, M.M.A.; Gomha Melad, A.S. A Review on Saponins from Medicinal Plants: Chemistry, Isolation, and Determination. *J. Nanomed. Res.* **2019**, *7*, 282–288. [CrossRef]

91. Pandya, A.; Thiele, B.; Zurita-Silva, A.; Usadel, B.; Fiorani, F. Determination and Metabolite Profiling of Mixtures of Triterpenoid Saponins from Seeds of Chilean Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa*) Germplasm. *Agronomy* **2021**, *11*, 1867. [CrossRef]

92. Maestro-Gaitán, I.; Granado-Rodríguez, S.; Poza-Viejo, L.; Matías, J.; Márquez-López, J.C.; Pedroche, J.J.; Cruz, V.; Bolaños, L.; Reguera, M. Quinoa Plant Architecture: A Key Factor Determining Plant Productivity and Seed Quality under Long-Term Drought. *Environ. Exp. Bot.* **2023**, *211*, 105350. [CrossRef]

93. Nishidono, Y.; Niwa, K.; Tanaka, K. Effect of Salt Stress on the Accumulation of Triterpenoid Saponins in Aseptic Cultured Glycyrrhiza Uralensis. *Plant Growth Regul.* **2023**, *100*, 25–31. [CrossRef]

94. Pardon, P.; Reubens, B.; Reheul, D.; Mertens, J.; De Frenne, P.; Coussement, T.; Janssens, P.; Verheyen, K. Trees Increase Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Availability in Temperate Agroforestry Systems. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.* **2017**, *247*, 98–111. [CrossRef]

95. El Mouttaqi, A.; Sabraoui, T.; Belcaid, M.; Ibourki, M.; Mnaouer, I.; Lazaar, K.; Sehbaoui, F.; Ait Elhaj, R.; Khaldi, M.; Rafik, S.; et al. Agro-Morphological and Biochemical Responses of Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd. Var: ICBA-Q5) to Organic Amendments under Various Salinity Conditions. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2023**, *14*, 1143170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

96. Kumari, R.; Bhatnagar, S.; Deepali; Mehla, N.; Vashistha, A. Potential of Organic Amendments (AM Fungi, PGPR, Vermicompost and Seaweeds) in Combating Salt Stress ... A Review. *Plant Stress* **2022**, *6*, 100111. [CrossRef]

97. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Effectiveness of Organic Wastes as Fertilizers and Amendments in Salt-Affected Soils. *Agriculture* **2015**, *5*, 221–230. [CrossRef]

98. Granado-Rodríguez, S.; Aparicio, N.; Matías, J.; Pérez-Romero, L.F.; Maestro, I.; Gracés, I.; Pedroche, J.J.; Haros, C.M.; Fernandez-Garcia, N.; Navarro del Hierro, J.; et al. Studying the Impact of Different Field Environmental Conditions on Seed Quality of Quinoa: The Case of Three Different Years Changing Seed Nutritional Traits in Southern Europe. *Front. Plant Sci.* **2021**, *12*, 854. [CrossRef]

99. Oumasas, A.; Azougay, S.; Mimouni, A.; Hallam, J. The Effect of Different Irrigation Water Salinity Levels on Nutrients Uptake, Biochemical Content and Growth Response of Blue Panicum, Quinoa and Silage Maize. *Environ. Sci. Proc.* **2022**, *16*, 60. [CrossRef]

100. Bouras, H.; Choukr-Allah, R.; Amouaouch, Y.; Bouaziz, A.; Devkota, K.P.; El Mouttaqi, A.; Bouazzama, B.; Hirich, A. How Does Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.) Respond to Phosphorus Fertilization and Irrigation Water Salinity? *Plants* **2022**, *11*, 216. [CrossRef]

101. Chen, J.; Wang, Y. Understanding the Salinity Resilience and Productivity of Halophytes in Saline Environments. *Plant Sci.* **2024**, *346*, 112171. [CrossRef]

102. Qureshi, A.; Daba, A. Evaluating Growth and Yield Parameters of Five Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* W.) Genotypes Under Different Salt Stress Conditions. *J. Agric. Sci.* **2020**, *12*, 128. [CrossRef]

103. Hirich, A.; Rafik, S.; Rahmani, M.; Fetouab, A.; Azaykou, F.; Filali, K.; Ahmadzai, H.; Jnaoui, Y.; Soulaimani, A.; Moussafir, M.; et al. Development of Quinoa Value Chain to Improve Food and Nutritional Security in Rural Communities in Rehamna, Morocco: Lessons Learned and Perspectives. *Plants* **2021**, *10*, 301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

104. Abidi, I.; Hirich, A.; Bazile, D.; Mahyou, H.; Gaboun, F.; Alaoui, S.B. Using Agronomic Parameters to Rate Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.) Cultivars Response to Saline Irrigation under Field Conditions in Eastern Morocco. *Environ. Sci. Proc.* **2022**, *16*, 67. [CrossRef]

105. Garcia, M.; Raes, D.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Evapotranspiration Analysis and Irrigation Requirements of Quinoa (*Chenopodium quinoa*) in the Bolivian Highlands. *Agric. Water Manag.* **2003**, *60*, 119–134. [CrossRef]

106. Allan, R.; Pereira, L.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 56.

107. Mead, R.; Willey, R.W. The Concept of a 'Land Equivalent Ratio' and Advantages in Yields from Intercropping. *Exp. Agric.* **1980**, *16*, 217–228. [CrossRef]

108. Sereke, F.; Graves, A.R.; Dux, D.; Palma, J.H.N.; Herzog, F. Innovative Agroecosystem Goods and Services: Key Profitability Drivers in Swiss Agroforestry. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* **2015**, *35*, 759–770. [CrossRef]

109. Chang, S.K.C.; Zhang, Y. Protein Analysis. In *Food Analysis*; Nielsen, S.S., Ed.; Food Science Text Series; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 315–331, ISBN 978-3-319-45776-5.
110. Pequerul, A.; Pérez, C.; Madero, P.; Val, J.; Monge, E. A Rapid Wet Digestion Method for Plant Analysis. In *Optimization of Plant Nutrition: Refereed Papers from the Eighth International Colloquium for the Optimization of Plant Nutrition*, 31 August–8 September 1992, Lisbon, Portugal; Fragoso, M.A.C., Van Beusichem, M.L., Houwers, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 3–6, ISBN 978-94-017-2496-8.

111. Navarro del Hierro, J.; Herrera, T.; García-Risco, M.R.; Fornari, T.; Reglero, G.; Martin, D. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction and Bioaccessibility of Saponins from Edible Seeds: Quinoa, Lentil, Fenugreek, Soybean and Lupin. *Food Res. Int.* **2018**, *109*, 440–447.
[CrossRef]

112. Lim, J.G.; Park, H.-M.; Yoon, K.S. Analysis of Saponin Composition and Comparison of the Antioxidant Activity of Various Parts of the Quinoa Plant (*Chenopodium quinoa* Willd.). *Food Sci. Nutr.* **2020**, *8*, 694–702. [CrossRef]

113. R Core Team. *R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2021.

**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.