## 3 Results  
### Effect of Salinity and Alleviation Treatments on Fruit Physiological and Quality Parameters  
Salt stress negatively affected some of the fruit physiological and quality parameters, such as mean fruit weight, fruit diameter, the fruit percentage in categories Extra and I plus II, the dry:fresh weight ratio, and finally the total yield per plot (Table 1). Mean fruit weight was significantly higher under Blank treatment, followed by the application of the microbial product (without a significant difference) while the other treatments resulted in lower mean fruit weight. Similarly, Blank treatment resulted in the highest mean fruit diameter while Control resulted in the lowest, with significant differences. The highest percentage of fruits belonging to the Extra category was recorded in Blank and microbial product treatments, while Control treatment resulted in the highest percentage of fruits belonging to the I plus II category. The dry:fresh weight ratio was highest under the microbial product treatment, with a significant difference from that determined in the Blank treatment. Finally, the total yield per plot was highest under the use of good-quality water (Blank), followed by GB treatment (with a significant difference), and lowest under the rest of the treatments, which resulted in the lowest total yields per plot. It is noteworthy that GB treatment resulted in an almost 31% higher yield per plot compared with the Control treatment. The mean fruit weight, length, diameter:length ratio, and firmness did not differ significantly among treatments (Table 1). However, the alleviating product applications increased the mean fruit diameter, compared with salt-stressed plants (Table 1). The alleviating products' applications did not exhibit any significant effects on the fruit juice pH value, TA, and TSS content, or their ratio (TSS:TA) (Table 2). As far as the color of the fruit surface is concerned, there was not any statistically significant difference between treatments in any of the measured variables (Chroma, L* and Hue angle) (Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Weight** & **Diameter** & **Length** & **Diameter.Length** & **Extra** & **I and II** & **Firmness** & **Dry-Fresh** & **Total** \\  & & & & & & & & & & & \\ Blank & \(12.15\pm 1.1\)* & \(29.07\pm 1.5\)* & \(33.54\pm 3.2\)* & \(0.87\pm 0.0\)* & \(86\pm 2.9\)* & \(14\pm 2.9\) c & \(2.86\pm 0.4\)* & \(0.06\pm 0.0\)* & \(426\pm 15.4\)* \\ Control & \(9.48\pm 0.4\)* & \(26.12\pm 0.6\)* & \(29.50\pm 2.0\)* & \(0.89\pm 0.1\)* & \(58\pm 2.6\)* & \(42\pm 2.6\)* & \(2.87\pm 0.3\)* & \(0.10\pm 0.0\)* & \(239\pm 9.5\) c \\ BETZ & \(10.07\pm 0.6\)* & \(27.53\pm 0.7\)* & \(28.77\pm 5.8\)* & \(0.82\pm 0.1\)* & \(73\pm 5.5\)* & \(27\pm 3.5\)* & \(2.79\pm 0.3\)* & \(0.09\pm 0.0\)* & \(244\pm 16.2\) c \\ BA & \(10.73\pm 0.2\)* & \(27.92\pm 0.3\)* & \(32.10\pm 0.7\)* & \(0.86\pm 0.0\)* & \(81\pm 7.6\)* & \(19\pm 2.9\)* & \(2.70\pm 0.3\)* & \(0.11\pm 0.0\)* & \(261\pm 24.0\) c \\ GB & \(10.27\pm 0.4\)* & \(27.54\pm 1.5\)* & \(31.43\pm 0.7\)* & \(0.87\pm 0.0\)* & \(72\pm 8.6\)* & \(28\pm 5.7\)* & \(2.92\pm 0.3\)* & \(0.09\pm 0.0\)* & \(314\pm 15.5\)* \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Means (\(\pm\)standard error) within the same column followed by the same letter, are not significantly different based on the Tukey HSD test at a = 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Salt stress and alleviating product application effects on strawberry mean fruit weight (g), diameter (mm), length (mm), diameter:length ratio, fruit classification (Extra, I and II, %), firmness (N), dry:fresh weight ratio, and mean total yield per plot (g) (fifteen plants). Effects of Salt Stress and Alleviating Product Application on Strawberry Fruit Phenolic and Anthocyanin Concentration and the Antioxidant Capacity of Fruit Juice  
Salt stress and the application of the various alleviating products had no significant impact on total phenols, total o-diphenylols, total flavanols, and total flavonoids concentration (Table 3).