## 3 Results
### Effect of Salinity and Alleviation Treatments on Fruit Physiological and Quality Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Leaflet Area** & **AGPM Area** & **Number of Leaves** & **Yield Efficiency** & **AGPM Fresh** & **Root Fresh** & **AGPM Dry** & **Root Dry** \\ \hline Blank & 23.02 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 711.0 \(\pm\) 53.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 30 \(\pm\) 35.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\circ}\) & 82.0 \(\pm\) 29.4 \({}^{\circ}\) & 38.03 \(\pm\) 6.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 18.62 \(\pm\) 4.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.63 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ Control & 18.57 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\circ}\)c & 439.9 \(\pm\) 13.6 \({}^{\circ}\) & 24 \(\pm\) 3.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\circ}\) & 32.09 \(\pm\) 2.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 25.89 \(\pm\) 4.1 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.55 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & 4.51 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ BETZ & 22.20 \(\pm\) 1.6 \({}^{\circ}\) & 418.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & 32.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 19 \(\pm\) 6.1 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\circ}\) & 50.84 \(\pm\) 13.4 \({}^{\circ}\) & 41.50 \(\pm\) 1.6 \({}^{\circ}\) & 10.83 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.05 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ BA & 16.68 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\circ}\)c & 339.6 \(\pm\) 67.7 \({}^{\circ}\)b & 19 \(\pm\) 40.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\circ}\) & 29.87 \(\pm\) 7.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & 24.12 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.78 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 4.69 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ GB & 16.24 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\circ}\)c & 335.2 \(\pm\) 19.2 \({}^{\circ}\)b & 20 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\circ}\) & 41.62 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 34.33 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\circ}\) & 10.67 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 6.10 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\circ}\)c \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{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{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Salt stress and alleviating product application effects on strawberry mean plant leaflet area (cm\({}^{2}\)), above-ground plant mass (AGPM) area (cm\({}^{2}\)), number of leaves, yield efficiency (g cm\({}^{-2}\)), AGPM, and root fresh and dry weights (g). Figure 1: Toxicity symptom severity, depending on sampling event and treatment. Different letters within each sampling event indicate significant differences among treatments, according to the Tukey HSD test at a = 0.05. Bars at each data point represent the SEs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Tolerance** & **Specific Leaf** & **Specific Leaf** & **AGPM Water** & **Root Water** & **D.W./Root** \\ \hline Blank & 100 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\circ}\) & 58.96 \(\pm\) 5.5 \({}^{\circ}\) \  
The severity percentage distribution of the symptoms revealed a significant difference (by the Chi-square test), which is shown in Figure 2. Sixty percent of the Control and BA-treated plants presented symptoms on more than 75% of the AGPM, indicating the severe salt stress of the plants. On the other hand, both GB- and BETZ-treated plants responded better, as only 40% of the plants exhibited severe toxicity symptoms. Effects of Salt Stress and Alleviating Product Application on Leaf, Root, and Whole-Plant Nutrient Content  
Plants given the Blank treatment exhibited the highest leaf N, P, K, Ca, Mg and B content (Table 8). Salt-stressed plants exhibited, as was expected, an increased Cl and Na content in leaves, while the alleviating products had no significant effect on leaf Na and Cl content. Furthermore, BA-treated plants exhibited the lowest leaf N, Ca, Mg, and B content in their AGPM (Table 8). N content was found to be highest in the roots of plants from the Blank treatment, though without significant differences from BETZ and GB (Table 9). Cl content was highest in the roots of salt-stressed and BA-treated plants, while BETZ and GB did not differ significantly from the Blank treatment, which exhibited the lowest Cl content.