© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF SALINE WATER IRRIGATION
AND NITROGEN FERTILIZATION ON TOMATOGROWTH AND YIELD
Hasnain Farooq1,2,*, Muhammad Amjad Bashir3, Ahlam Khalofah4,5, Khalid Ali Khan4,5,6,
Musarrat Ramzan7, Arif Hussain8, Laosheng Wu1, Jiri Simunek1, Irum Aziz9,
Mohammad Shahzad Samdani10, Suilman Mohammad Alghanem11, Haifa A Alhaithloul12,
Milt McGiffen13, Zubair Ahmad4,5,14
1
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California, USA
Department of Forestry Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab, Pakistan
3
Department of Plant Protection Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab, Pakistan
4
Biology Department, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
5
Research Center for Advanced Materials Science (RCAMS), King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
6
Unit of Bee Research and Honey Production, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Botany, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur Pakistan
8
Department of Soil & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab, Pakistan
9
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab, Pakistan
10College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
11
Department of Biology Faculty of Science, Tabuk University, Tabuk, Saudia Arabia
12
Biology Department College of Science, Jouf University, Sakaka 2014, Saudia Arabia
13
Departments of Botany and Plant Science, University of California, USA
14
Biology Department, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, King Khalid University, Dhahran Al Janoub, Saudi Arabia
2

ABSTRACTINTRODUCTION

Water is an important constituent of cell andplays an important role in almost all biochemical
processes. High salt concentration in the root zone
impedes the water movement from soil to aerial partsof the plant by reducing the available water for plant
uptake. Salinity is among the major limitations forplant growth and productivity all around the globe
and the damage caused by high salinity is witnessed
as either loss of plant productivity or plant death.
Soil salinization is the result of different soluble salts
accumulation in the root zone. soil salinization is increasing at a rate of 10% annually and more than
50% of the arable land would be salinized by the year
2050. Approximately 4.5 million acres of croplandin California have been reported to be affected by saline soils or saline irrigation water. The scenario in
Pakistan is also alarming where 1.89 out of 19.43
Mha irrigated cropland is salt affected. A pot experiment was carried out in the greenhouse at the
University of California, Riverside. Tomato wasused as the study plant and the experiment included
nine treatments representing different combinationsof three irrigation water salinity levels and three nitrogen fertilization rates. High salinity stress causes
the stress on plant growth and productivity due to theeffective increment in the osmotic stress, ion toxicity, and alterations in soil physical and chemical
properties.

Currently, world population of 7.5 billion is increasing at an alarming rate and expected to reach
8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100 [1], and there is a great need to increase
the food production as much as 70 percent by 2050
[2] to feed this massive population. Increasing quantities of water are obligatory along with other provisions to accomplish this goal. It has been predictedthat 60% of the global population will undergo water
shortage by the year 2025 [3]. This increased demand of more water to irrigate crops to cope with thefood security issue, especially when fresh-water resources are limited, has led to a rush of interest in theuse of low-quality or saline water for irrigation in agriculture [4,5].
Salinity is among the major limitations forplant growth and productivity all around the globe
and the damage caused by high salinity is witnessed
as either loss of plant productivity or plant death.
Soil salinization is the result of different soluble salts
accumulation in the root zone. soil salinization is increasing at a rate of 10% annually and more than
50% of the arable land would be salinized by the year
2050 [6]. Approximately 4.5 million acres ofcropland in California have been reported to be affected by saline soils or saline irrigation water [7].
The scenario in Pakistan is also alarming where 1.89
out of 19.43 Mha irrigated cropland is salt affected[8].
Water is an important constituent of cell andplays an important role in almost all biochemical
processes. High salt concentration in the root zone

KEYWORDS:
Salinity, Stress, Tomato, Water, Yield3557

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

impedes the water movement from soil to aerial partsof the plant by reducing the available water for plant
uptake [9]. Accumulation of these injurious ions may
inhibit photosynthesis by damaging chloroplasts,
protein synthesis, and inactivate different enzymes[10]. Thus it is essential to develop suitable water
management strategies in order to attain maximum
yields from the crops irrigated with saline water andessential mineral nutrients. Therefore, it is very important to develop agricultural management practices to cope with salinity while at the same time, optimizing nitrogen use to improve nitrogen use efficiency and reduce nitrate leaching potential.
Various fertilizers play a significant role incrop production. An adequate supply of essential nutrients can considerably ameliorate plant growth,quality and their nutritional values [11]. Both nitrogen and water are vital factors for tomato growth andfruit quality [12]. Nitrogen is of prime importancefor the plants as it is a major component of chlorophyll, the compound which plays a key role in photosynthesis to produce plant’s food from water andcarbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight [13]. On
the other hand, nitrogen is one of the most limiting
nutrients in vegetable production, especially in crops
with high nitrogen demand like tomato [14].
Tomato is the second most valuable crop, 19%of all vegetable consumption only behind potato at
23% [15], as well as the second most commonlygrown vegetable in the world after potato [16]. Tomato production requires enormous amount of water[17, 18] and nitrogen for optimal growth and yield.
Tomato is sensitive to moderate salinity level up to
2.5 dS m-1 for most of the commercial cultivars [19].
Keeping in view the above discussion, no or little research work has been reported regarding the interactive effect of salinity and nitrogen on tomato
growth, fruit yield and quality, the overall objectiveof this study was to evaluate the interactive effect ofirrigation water salinity and nitrogen application
rates on tomato growth, yield and fruit quality bygreenhouse pot experiment.

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

added in small increments to obtain uniform packing. As a pretreatment, the soil was irrigated withequal amounts of 4% W/W water of EC = 1 dS m-1
one day before the tomato seedling transplantation.
Soil Collection, Packing, and its Basic Properties. Bulk soil was collected from the upper 30 cm
of the experimental field from the Citrus ResearchCenter, University of California Riverside. The collected bulk soil was air dried and passed through 10
mm sieve. Based on the soil particle size analysis(hydrometer method) the soil was classified as sandyloam. The electrical conductivity (µS m-1) of soil
was determined with an EC meter in an extract (1:5)
after shaking for 3 mins.
Experimental Plan. Plants were irrigated with
two saline water treatments (2 and 4 dSm-1) and one
control treatment (half-strength Hoagland solution).
Three irrigation water treatments were factorial combined with the three levels of nitrogen fertilization
and arranged in a completely randomized design
with three replications. Saline water stock solution
was added to the control treatment to raise the irrigation water salinity up to desired levels of EC = 2 and4 dS m-1, and the saline water stock solution was prepared by using NaCl, Na2SO4, CaCl2,and MgSO4 inmolar proportion of 0.54, 0.33, 0.11, and 0.02 respectively. This composition is in line with the salinesoil.Tomato crop was fertilized with three nitrogenrates; viz80, 100 and 120% of the recommendation
for the pot experiment (100 mg Kg-1 soil) made by
Novais et al. 1991. Nitrogen was applied in the formof Urea in three equal splits, i.e. with the first irrigation after transplantation, at the start of floweringand at the start of fruiting.
Irrigation. Plants were irrigated weekly for the
first 7 weeks and every 4th day for the remaining
growing season depending on the crop Water Use(ETa). Etawas measured gravimetrically by weighing
the pot according to the method of FAO irrigationand drainage paper No. 56 and the required ETawaterplus extra water for leaching requirement (LR) was
added to the pots. The leaching requirement was calculated by the equation developed by as a guideline
for calculating LR based on irrigation water salinity
and crop salt tolerance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pot experiment A pot experiment was carriedout in the greenhouse at the University of California,
Riverside. Tomato was used as the study plant andthe experiment included nine treatments representing different combinations of three irrigation watersalinity levels and three nitrogen fertilization rates.
Plastic pots were used in this experiment about 30
cm in height, 28 cm in diameter with a hole in thebottom center with the fiberglass wick to facilitate
the drainage water collection. For each pot, a pre-determined amount of soil (Amount of soil = Bulk density * Volume) for bulk density of 1.25 g cm-3 was

TABLE 1
Summary of experimental treatments
Nitrogen Levels
Treatments
80% N
100% N
120% N
S1N1
S1N2
S1N3
Control
2 dS m-1

S2N1

S2N2

S2N3

4 dS m

S3N1

S3N2

S3N3

-1

3558

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

TABLE 2
Chemical composition of different irrigation waters
Chemical composition of Irrigation Waters
Control
2 dS m-1
Sodium (Na+)
(ppm)
1.79
295.12
Calcium (Ca++)
(ppm)
32.74
59.96
potassium (K+)
(ppm)
28.32
26.80
Magnesium (Mg++)
(ppm)
7.74
8.77
Phosphorous (P-)
(ppm)
2.98
2.46
Chloride (Cl-)
(ppm)
2.58
364.12
Nitrate (NO3-)(ppm)
230.03167.18Sulfate (S04=)
(ppm)
35.78
459.44
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = 5𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 −𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑒𝑒

𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

4 dS m-1
711.80
95.71
21.63
10.38
1.68
978.47113.631173.83(Table 1.6), it is clear that all three levels of salinity
differed significantly from one another. Total soluble solids of tomato fruits were increased linearly as
the salinity level increased (p <0.01). Our observations about the effect of salinity levels on the totalsoluble solids agreed with the findings by [20] Ahmed et al. (2017) who reported that the total soluble
solids increased linearly with salinity levels of irrigation water. Likewise, our results were similar to
the findings obtained by [21-, 23]. It is obvious fromour work that the salinity levels of irrigation water
reduced the fruit water content which in turn increased the total soluble solids of tomato fruit. [24]Reported a positive relationship between the fruit
soluble solids and irrigation water salinity and observed the increase in tomato fruit total soluble solid
under the saline water irrigation (5.5 dS m-1) treatment in their study. Our observations about the effectof salinity levels on the total soluble solids agreed
with the findings by [25] who reported that the totalsoluble solids increased linearly with salinity levelsof irrigation water.

(1)

Data Collection Plant height and the leaf area
were measured three times during the mid-growing
season before fruiting. Shoot fresh and dry biomass
was determined at the end of the experiment whenfruits were harvested. Total fruit yield per plant (g),the total number of fruits per plant and average fruit
weight (g) were determined. The homogenized
fruit's juice was subjected to the total soluble solids(TSS, expressed as °Brix at 20 °C) determination using a portable refract meter and the treatable acidity
determination by titration against NaOH using phenolphthalein as indicator according to the method
described in AOAC.
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis of thedata (ANOVA) was conducted and differences between the means were compared for significance using a Revised Least Significant Difference (LSD)
test at 0.05 levels.

Effect of treatments on tomato growth parameters According to the data recorded regarding
the tomato plant fresh and dry biomass, plant heightand growth parameter were significantly alteredamong the salinity and nitrogen applications levels(Tab.1 and tab. 2). It can be explained that salinity
might have decreased the photosynthetic activities
and prepared insufficient food for plant growth andfruit enlargement. According to the present study, results suggested that the stress caused by the excess
of ions might reduce CO2 assimilation, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis whichconsequently tend to hamper plant development.
Mostly Plant growth is affected by the soil salinities
due to a reduction in the osmotic potential of the soil
solution, along with the possibility of the occurrenceof ionic toxicity and/or nutritional imbalance due tounnecessarily higher accumulation of certain ions inplant tissues. [26] found that the values of the fresh
seedling weight of the three different tomato cultivars were generally lowered with the increasing salinization comparing with the control. [27]) reported

RESULTS
Soil salinity is one of the most important abiotic
factors controlling crop yields in the arid and semiarid irrigated areas. Plant growth was significantly
affected when the salinity concentration was increased from lower to higher with and without nitrogen application. Higher yields were recorded in thetreatments with lower irrigation water salinity ascompared to higher irrigation water salinity.
Nitrogen application improved tomato growthand yield parameters while this increment was not
significantly different. Fruit firmness was the only
parameter that was significantly differed with thedifferent levels of nitrogen application. The effect ofnitrogen along with the saline water irrigation
showed the prominent effects on tomato plant
growth and yield. Data obtained on the total soluble
solids (TSS) of tomato fruit as influenced by various
levels of salinity and nitrogen showed that the effectsof salinity, nitrogen, and their interactions werehighly significant (P< 0.01). For the salinity effect3559

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

that the plant height decreased with increasing irrigation water salinity and this decrease became moresignificant when irrigation water of electrical conductivity equal or higher to 3.5 dS m-1 was used. The
findings of [28] support the present results as theyreported that the plants irrigated with fresh-waterproduced longer fruits than the plants irrigated withwaters of higher irrigation water salinity. [29] reported an increment in different growth parametersof tomato plants with the increase in N fertilization,even under moderate salinity conditions while [30]found interaction in salinity and nitrogen fertilization
only for the leaf area. On the other hand, [31] reported the significant effect of salinity and nitrogenlevel for different growth parameters while the interaction was significant only for the number of leaves
and seedling fresh and dry weight.
By comparing the leaf areas in treatments ofthree salinity levels (Table 3), it was found that theleaf area of 2dSm-1treatment (133.60 cm2) was comparable with that of the control treatment (145.48
cm2). However, the leaf area in the 4dS m-1(89.99
cm2) was significantly lower than that of the control(38.14 % decrease). [32] observed that the leaf areaof cherry tomato decreased linearly with the increasein irrigation water salinity and reduction of 9.21%
per unit increase in ECiw.. The excess of salts in theroot zone might have negative effects on plant
growth, because of the higher osmotic effect outside
the roots and restriction in the water flow from thesoil to the plants, which is necessary for survival andproduction under saline stress conditions [33]Fresenius Environmental Bulletin0.01), while the effects of nitrogen levels and the salinity × nitrogen interaction on the total fruit yield oftomatoes per plant were found non-significant.
It can be seen that the total fruit yield of tomatoes per plant in various levels of salinity treatments
differed significantly from one another (Table 4).
The significantly highest total fruit yield of tomatoes
per plant (2259.7 g per plant) was recorded in control
treatment as against the total yield of 1988.1 and
1211.9 g per plant, respectively, in 2 and 4 dS m-1
irrigation water salinity treatments, which represent
12.1 and 46.36% reductions, compared with the control treatment. There was a significant and linear decrease in the total fruit yield of tomatoes per plant as
the salinity level increased from control to 4 dS m-1.
Our results regarding the effects of salinity levels are in agreement with the work of other researchers who reported that salinity levels above 2 dS m-1
reduced the total fruit yield of tomato significantly.
[34] also indicated that the tomato yields reduced
when the plants were irrigated with a nutrient solution of EC 2.5 dS m-1 or higher, and they attributed
the yield reduction to the decrease in average fruit
weight and/or number of fruits.
Also [35] reported that total fruit yield of tomato reduced by 11% upon each unit increase in thesalinity of the irrigation water. Reduction in total
fruit yield (49.7%) of tomato has also been observed
at higher salinity levels (12 dS m-1) in comparison
with the control (1.2 dS m-1), while a moderate salinity level (2.4 dS m-1) of irrigation water had no significant effect in this regard [36]. According to [37]increasing EC of irrigation water from 1.5 to 3.2 dS
m-1 reduced about 45% tomato yield. Also [38] reported yield reduction in plants irrigated with waterof 3.6 dS m-1 as compared with that of irrigated with

Effect of treatments on fruit yield and quality. Our results about the total tomato fruit yield per
plant showed that the effect of salinity levels on the
total fruit yield per plant was highly significant (P<TABLE 3
Effect of irrigation water salinity and nitrogen fertilization on tomato growth parameters.
Shoot fresh weight Shoot dry weight
Leaf area index
Treatments
Shoot length (cm)(g)(g)
80% Nitrogen
41.67
848.72113.07143.92
100% Nitrogen
42.50
897.07114.54141.45Control
120% Nitrogen
43.00
921.30118.10151.06
Mean
42.39a889.03a115.24a145.48a
80% Nitrogen
41.00
816.89105.58134.13
100% Nitrogen
41.33
840.44109.36129.33-1
EC 2 dS m
120% Nitrogen
41.67
906.18112.69137.34Mean
41.22a(-2.76%)
854.50a(-3.88%) 109.21a(-5.23%) 133.60a(-8.17%)
80% Nitrogen
37.33
419.72
61.19
91.59
100% Nitrogen
38.17
508.0071.55
89.58
EC 4 dS m-1 120% Nitrogen
39.17
527.8277.44
88.79
17.19b
485.18b70.06b
89.99bMean(-59.44%)(-45.43%)(-39.21%)(-38.14%)
80% Nitrogen
40.00
695.11ab93.28a123.21aMean
100% Nitrogen
40.67
748.50a98.48a120.12a120% Nitrogen
41.28
695.11ab102.74a125.73a

Means followed by similar letter(s) in respective row or column do not differ significantly from one another.
Number in the parenthesis shows the percent increase or decrease.

3560

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin

TABLE 4
Effect of irrigation water salinity and nitrogen fertilization on tomato fruit yield and quality.
Fruit
Total fruit Number of Average
Fruit
Fruit waFruit volfirmness Fruit TSS
Treatments
yield per fruits per
fruit
lengthter con(°Brix)ume (cm3)(poundplant
plant (g)weight (g) (mm)tent (%)
force, lbf)
80%2122.49
77.67
27.42
50.16
38.79
93.02
1.01
5.81
Nitrogen100%
2255.62
81.67
27.68
50.40
39.04
93.66
1.09
5.50
Control Nitrogen120%
2400.89
84.00
28.84
50.56
39.24
93.72
1.12
5.34
NitrogenMean
2259.70a
81.11a27.98a50.37a39.02a93.45a
1.07c
5.55c
80%
1920.98
65.67
29.97
50.47
39.14
92.67
1.07
6.15
Nitrogen100% Ni1989.51
69.67
28.94
51.05
39.99
92.69
1.28
6.10
EC 2 dS trogen
-1
m
120%
2053.84
74.33
27.81
52.61
41.29
92.74
1.33
6.10
Nitrogen1988.10b69.89b
28.90a51.38a40.14a92.70b
1.23b
6.11b
Mean
(-12.01%) (-13.83%) (-3.65%)(-0.81%) (14.95%) (10.09%)80%1115.70
58.00
20.12
40.74
30.43
92.11
1.22
6.97
Nitrogen
100%
1246.99
60.67
20.60
41.08
30.84
91.56
1.39
6.58
EC 4 dS Nitrogen
-1
m
120%
1273.02
62.67
20.73
42.14
31.43
91.24
1.62
7.02
Nitrogen1211.90c
60.44c20.49b
47.12b30.90b
91.64c
1.41a
6.85
Mean
(-46.36%) (-25.48%) (-26.77%) (-6.45%) (-20.81%) (-1.94%) (31.78%) (23.42%)80%
1719.70a
67.11a25.84a47.12a36.12a92.11a
1.10c
6.31a
Nitrogen100%
91.56a
1.25b
6.06b
Mean
1830.70a
70.67a25.74a47.51a36.62aNitrogen(13.63%)120%
91.24a1.36a
6.15b
1909.20a73.67a25.80a48.44a37.32aNitrogen(23.63%)Means followed by similar letter(s) in respective row or column do not differ significantly from one another.
Number in the parenthesis shows the percent increase or decrease.

water of 0.9 dS m-1. [39] published their work reporting that the significantly highest total fruit yield wasrecorded in plants irrigated with fresh-water and significant yield reduction was observed in plants irrigated with saline water of EC = 4 dS m-1 and higher.
[40] observed that the most sensitive plants may suffer physiological damages, with subsequent significant yield loss, while moderately sensitive to tolerant
plants are still able to produce acceptable yields. [41]observed the 11.51% and 25.84% decrease in yield
when irrigation water salinity was 6.3 and 9.1 dS m1
as compared with fresh-water (EC = 0.38 dS m-1).
[42] also reported that that the tomato fruit yield per
plant significantly reduced with the application ofsaline irrigation water of EC = 3.0 and 4.5 dS m-1 ascompared to irrigation water of EC = 0.55 EC = 2 dS
m-1. Yield reduction has been attributed to reduced
photosynthesis, high energy and carbohydrate expenditure in osmoregulation under salt stress conditions [43].

The results regarding the effect of nitrogen levels on the total fruit yield of tomatoes per plant (Table 4) showed that 80% of the recommended level ofnitrogen seems better as there was no significant increase in yield at higher N application rates.
Comparing the salinity levels with one another(Table 4), it was observed that all the three EC levels
differed significantly from one another as regards
their effect on the number of fruits per plant. The
control treatment was found with the significantly
highest number of fruits per plant (81) and it decreased linearly as the salinity level was increased ata significant level of p < 0.01. The reduction in thenumber of fruits per plant was 13.83 and 25.48% at
2 and 4 dS m-1, respectively.
Though the results for nitrogen levels were
non-significant, (Table 4), there was a little linear increase in the number of fruits per plant as N application rate increases from 80% of recommended nitrogen to 120% of recommended nitrogen. However, it3561

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564

can be visualized from these results that the application of 80% of the recommended level of nitrogenseems better under the greenhouse conditions.
Inconsistencies have been found in the literature regarding the number of fruits per plant as influenced by the salinity. [44] reported that moderate salinity had no effect on the number of fruits per plant
and the yield reduction was entirely due to smaller
fruit size. However, their results are inconsistent
with the study of [45] who reported that the decline
in number of fruits per plant was a result of increasing salinity. The reduction in number of fruits perplant in this study might be related to the reduced
number of flower per truss and per plant in higher
salinity treatments [46] who indicated that the number of tomato fruits/plant depended on the number oftrusses/plant, and the number of flowers/truss andthe number of trusses/plant decreased as irrigationwater salinity, as well as salinization period increased.
Comparing the various levels of salinity with
one another (Table 4), it can be visualized that all
three levels of irrigation water salinity were significantly different from one another. The fruit firmnessof tomato was significantly and linearly increased
with the increase in the salinity level. The increase infruit firmness over control was 14.95 and 31.78 %,respectively due to 2 and 4 dS m-1 treatments. As regards the effect of various levels of nitrogen on the
fruit firmness (Table 4), it can be seen that all threelevels of nitrogen were significantly different fromone another. The fruit firmness was increased linearly as the nitrogen level was increased from 80 %to 120 % N. The interactions between salinity levels
and nitrogen levels on the fruit firmness of tomato(Fig.1.1) showed that the highest level of nitrogenproduced tomatoes with significantly greater fruit
firmness at three levels of irrigation water salinity.
Similarly, the significant results were observed forthe fruit water content (93.45%) and the significantly
lowest fruit water content of 91.64% were recordedin control treatment and irrigation water salinity of 4
dS m-1 treatment respectively. This decrease in fruit
water content due to the use of saline water can be
explained on the basis of making osmotic adjustments [47]. Soluble salts lower the osmotic potentialof the soil water, thus lower leaf water potential isrequired to sustain transpiration [48]. In other words,
plants spend more energy on the uptake of water.
Looking at the various levels of salinity on the
fruit volume of tomato (Table 4), it can be visualizedthat the 2 dS m-1 (40.14) was at par with control treatment (39.02) and both of these treatments were significantly different from 4 dS m-1 (30.92). The reduction in fruit volume at 4 dS m-1 was 20.81 % over thecontrol treatment. This reduction might
be due to the adverse effect of salinity on the numberof leaves per plant and disruption of chloroplasts resulting in reduced photosynthetic activity of tomato
plants and synthesis of food. High salinity stress

Fresenius Environmental Bulletincauses the stress on plant growth and productivity
due to the effective increment in the osmotic stress,
ion toxicity, and alterations in soil physical andchemical properties[49] ), as well as triggering an
imbalance of nutritional cations in plant tissues [50].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge the supportof the Research Center for Advanced Materials Science (RCAMS), King Khalid University, Abha
Saudi Arabia for funding this work through research
program RCAMS/KKU/04/20.
REFERENCES[1] FAO (2009) High-Level Expert Forum; How to
Feed the World in 2050. Economic and Social
Development Department, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Availableat:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf.
[2] Bashir, M.A., Alvi, A.M., Naz, H. (2014). Effectiveness of Sticky Traps in Monitoring of Insects. Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences. 1, Article No. 5.
[3] Adams, P. and Ho, L.C. (1989) Effects of Constant and Fluctuating Salinity on the Yield,
Quality and Calcium Status of Tomatoes. Journal of Horticultural Science. 64(6), 725–732.
[4] Nizam, A., Mahmud, N., Zaman, M., Ferdous,Z., and Halder, S. (2017) Effect of Different Salinity Level on Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum) Production under Climate Change Condition in Bangladesh. Annual Research and Review in Biology. 13(3), 1–9.
[5] Alam, S.M., Ansari, R. and Khan, A.K. (2000)
Saline Agriculture and Pakistan. Economist,
May 8, 2000. Available at: http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue2000/issue19&20/i&e3.htm.
[6] Al-Busaidi, A., Al-Rawahy, S., and Ahmed, M.
(2009) Response of Different Tomato Cultivars
to Diluted Seawater Salinity. Asian Journal of
Crop Science. 1(02), 77–86.
[7] Al-Harbi, A.R., Wahb-Allah, M.A. and AbuMuriefah, S.S. (2008) Salinity and Nitrogen
Level Affects Germination, Emergence, andSeedling Growth of Tomato. International Journal of Vegetable Science 14(4), 380–92.
[8] Harbi, A., Abdulaziz, R., Abdulrasoul, M., Omran, A., Mekhled, M., Alenazi, M.M. and Allah,
M.A.W. (2015) Salinity and Deficit Irrigation
Influence Tomato Growth, Yield and Water Use
Efficiency at Different Developmental Stages.
International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 17(3), 241-250.

3562

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564[9] Alsadon, A.A. Wahb-Allah, A.M. and Khalil,
S.O. (2009) Evaluation of Salinity Tolerance ofTomato Cultivars, Breeding Lines and their Hybrid Combinations under Greenhouse Conditions. In International Symposium on Strategies
towards Sustainability of Protected Cultivationin Mild Winter Climate. 807, 207–214.
[10] Badr, M.A. and Talaab, A.S. (2008) Responseof Tomatoes to Nitrogen Supply through Drip
Irrigation System under Salt Stress Conditions.
Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2(1), 149-156.
[11] Herman, B. (1994) Irrigation and Global Water
Outlook. Agricultural Water Management.
25(3), 221–31.
[12] Ali, M., A., Sajjad, M. A., Farooqi, M.A. Bashir,
M. N. Aslam, M. Nafees , M. N., Aslam , M.
Adnan , K.A., Khan (2019). Assessing indigenous and local knowledge of farmers about pollination services in cucurbit agro-ecosystem of
Punjab, Pakistan. Saudi Journal of Biological
Sciences. 27(1), 189-194[13] Campos, Brasiliano, C.A., Fernandes, P.D.,
Gheyi, H.R. Blanco, F.F., Gonçalves, C.B. andCampos, S.A.F. (2006) Yield and Fruit Qualityof Industrial Tomato under Saline Irrigation.
Scientia Agricola. 63(2), 146–152.
[14] Bashir, M.A., Alvi, A.M., Naz, H. (2014).
Screening of Legumes and Cereals against Callosobruchus maculatus on the Basis of Fecundity and Longevity. Journal of Environmental
and Agricultural Sciences. 1, 11.
[15] Jesús, C. and Muñoz, R.F. (1999) Tomato andSalinity. Scientia Horticulturae. 78(1–4), 83–
125.
[16] Martine, D., Ehret, D.L. and Papadopoulos, A.P.
(2008) Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum) HealthComponents: From the Seed to the Consumer.
Phytochemistry Reviews. 7(2), 231.
[17] Elamin, E.A. and Al-Wehaibi, N.S. (2005) Alternate Use of Good and Saline Irrigation Water(1:1) on the Performance of Tomato Cultivar.
Journal of Plant Nutrition. 28(6), 1061–72.
[18] Eltez, R.Z.Y., Tüzel, A., Gül, I., Tüzel, H. andDuyar, H. (2002) Effects of Different EC Levelsof Nutrient Solution on Greenhouse Tomato
Growing. Acta Hortic. 573, 443–448.
[19] Bashir, M.A., Saeed, S., Sajjad, A., Ali, M.
(2015) Seasonal Variation in abundance and diversity of insects Pollinator in Forest Ecosystem
of Southern Punjab Pakistan. Pure Appl. Biol.
4(3), 441-452.
[20] Kenneth, H. (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, Arlington, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1, 673.
[21] Jamil, A., Riaz, S., Ashraf, M. and Foolad, M.R.
(2011) Gene Expression Profiling of Plants under Salt Stress. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 30(5), 435–58.

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin[22] Mahnaz, K. Hossien, M.M. and Shabani, F.
(2018) Soil Salinity and Matric Potential Interaction on Water Use, Water Use Efficiency andYield Response Factor of Bean and Wheat. Scientific Reports. 8(1), 2679.
[23] George, K. (1996) Strain, Social and Environmental Consequences, and Water Managementin the Most Stressed Water Systems in Africa.
Water Management in Africa and the Middle
East. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. 120–152.
[24] Leone, A.P., Menenti, M., Sorrentino, G.,(2000) Reflectance Spectrometry to Study Crop
Response to Soil Salinity. Italian Journal ofAgronomy. 4(2), 75–85.
[25] Letey, J. (2000) Soil Salinity Poses Challenges
for Sustainable Agriculture and Wildlife. California Agriculture. 54(2), 43–48.
[26] Ling, L.Y. Stanghellini, C. and Challa, H.
(2001) Effect of Electrical Conductivity andTranspiration on Production of Greenhouse Tomato (Lycopersicon Esculentum L.). Scientia
Horticulturae. 88(1), 11–29.
[27] Frans, J.M. (2009) Physiological Functions ofMineral Macronutrients. Current Opinion in
Plant Biology. 12(3), 250–258.
[28] Rui, M. and Serralheiro, R. (2017) Soil Salinity:
Effect on Vegetable Crop Growth. Management
Practices to Prevent and Mitigate Soil Salinization. Horticulturae. 3(2), 30-36[29] Magán, J.J. Gallardo, M. Thompson, R.B. andLorenzo, P. (2008) Effects of Salinity on Fruit
Yield and Quality of Tomato Grown in SoilLess Culture in Greenhouses in Mediterranean
Climatic Conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 95(9), 1041–55.
[30] Malash, N.M. Flowers, T.J. and Ragab, R.
(2008) Effect of Irrigation Methods, Management and Salinity of Irrigation Water on Tomato
Yield, Soil Moisture and Salinity Distribution.
Irrigation Science. 26(4), 313–23.
[31] Nangare, D.D., Singh, K.G. and Kumar, S.
(2013) Effect of Blending Fresh-Saline Water
and Discharge Rate of Drip on Plant Yield, Water Use Efficiency (WUE) and Quality of Tomato in Semi-Arid Environment. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(27), 3639–3645.
[32] Peet, M.M. and Welles, G.W.H. (2005) Greenhouse Tomato Production. Crop Production Science in Horticulture. 13, 257.
[33] Mansoor, Q. Sharma, B.R., Bruggeman, A., Allah, R.C. and Karajeh, F. (2007) Non-Conventional Water Resources and Opportunities for
Water Augmentation to Achieve Food Security
in Water Scarce Countries. Agricultural Water
Management. 87(1), 2–22.

3563

© by PSP

Volume 30– No. 04/2021 pages 3557-3564[34] Ragab, R. (1996) Constraints and Applicabilityof Irrigation Scheduling under Limited Water
Resources, Variable Rainfall and Saline Conditions. In Water Reports (FAO). FAO/ICID.
Availableat:
http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search.do?recordID=XF1997073651.
[35] Kristin, R.J. and Keast, D.R. (2016) Tomato
Consumption in the United States and Its Relationship to the US Department of Agriculture
Food Pattern: Results from What We Eat in
America 2005–2010. Nutrition Today. 51(4),198.
[36] Rhoades, J.D., Kandiah, A. and Mashali, A.M.
(1992) The Use of Saline Waters for Crop Production. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. 48.
Rome, Italy.
[37] Shani, U. and Dudley, L.M. (2001) Field Studies of Crop Response to Water and Salt Stress.
Soil Science Society of America Journal. 65(5),1522–1528.
[38] Kausar, R., Bashir, M.A., Nisar, S., Rehamani,
M.I.A., Hashami., S.A., Atta, S. (2017) EcoFriendly Management of Pulse Beetle (Callosobruchus Chinensis) by Using Different Plant
Materials. Asian J. Agri. and Biol. 5(2), 70-77.
[39] Bashir, M.A., Saeed, S., Sajjad, A., Ali, M.
(2015) Seasonal Variation in abundance and diversity of insects Pollinator in Forest Ecosystem
of Southern Punjab Pakistan. Pure Appl. Biol.
4(3), 441-452.
[40] Souri, M.K. and Dehnavard, S. (2017) Tomato
Plant Growth, Leaf Nu0trient Concentrations
and Fruit Quality under Nitrogen Foliar Applications. Advances in Horticultural Science.
32(1), 41-47.
[41] Tahir, M., Zafar, M.M., Imran, A., Hafeez,
M.A., Rasheed, M.S., Mustafa, H.S.B. and Asmat, Ullah U. (2018) Response of Tomato Genotypes against Salinity Stress at Germinationand Seedling Stage. Nat. and Sci. 16, 10–17.
[42] Ieperen, V.W. (1996) Effects of Different Day
and Night Salinity Levels on Vegetative
Growth, Yield and Quality of Tomato. Journalof Horticultural Science. 71(1), 99–111.
[43] Naeem I., A.M., Alvi., M., Shoaib., A. Rashid.,
Q. Saeed M.A., Bashir. (2018). Evaluation ofdifferent wood species against fungus-growing
termite Odontotermes obesus (Blattodea: Termitidae: Macrotermitinae) for using in bait stations. Journal of Asia Pacific Entomology
21(2018), 485-489.
[44] Xiukang, W. and Xing, Y. (2016) Effects of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Input Levels on
Soil NO3 −-N Content and Vertical Distribution
in Greenhouse Tomato (Lycopersicum Esculentum Mill.). Scientifica. 2016, 5710915.

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin[45] Yaming, Z., Yang, Q. and Hou, M. (2015) The
Effects of Saline Water Drip Irrigation on Tomato Yield, Quality, and Blossom-End Rot Incidence --- A 3a Case Study in the South of
China. PLoS ONE. 10(11). Article ID:
e0142204.
[46] Sajjad, A., Saeed, S., Bashir, M.A. (2012).Spatial variation in pollinator communities & reproductive performance of Prosopis juliflora. Journal of Pollination Ecology.8 (9), 59-66.
[47] Bashir, M.A., Saeed, S. and Sajjad, A. (2013).
Monitoring Methods of Pollinators in Different
Forest Ecosystems of Southern Punjab Pakistan.
Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences.
50(3), 359-366.
[48] Bibi, R., Mehdi, M., Bashir, M.A., Ibrahim, M.,
and Fatima, G. (2014) Efficacy of leaf extractsof Neem (Azadirachta indica), Ak (Calotropisprocera) and Bitter Apple (Citrulluscolocynthis) for the control of Khapra Beetle (Trogoderma granarium). Applied Sciences & Business Economics. V-3, 43-51.
[49] Ali, M., Saeed, S., Sajjad, A. and Bashir, M.A.
(2014). Exploring the best Native Pollinators for
Pumpkin (Cucrbita pepo) production in Punjab
Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 46(2),531-539.
[50] Ullah, S., Bibi, R., Bashir, M.A., Ibrahim, M.,
Saeed, S. and Hussain, M.A. (2014). Population
Dynamic of Aphids and its Bio Control Agentsin Wheat Crop. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition.
13(3), 146-150.

Received:
Accepted:

14.10.2020
28.10.2020

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Hasnain Farooq
Laboratory: Forestry Lab.
University Ghazi University
Dera Ghazi Khan 32400 – Pakistane-mail: hfarooq@gudgk.edu.pk

3564