## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatments–Substrate** & **Sub-** & **Leaf DW (g)** & **Stem DW (g)** & **Root DW (g)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Relative Growth Rate** \\ **(Height–mm mm\({}^{-1}\) d\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Control & I & 4.37 \(\pm\) 0.36 ab & 14.93 \(\pm\) 3.01 ab & 11.23 \(\pm\) 1.66 ab & 0.0063 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\  & II & 2.34 \(\pm\) 0.16 d & 16.02 \(\pm\) 2.47 ab & 13.19 \(\pm\) 2.22 ab & 0.0033 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\  & III & 3.51 \(\pm\) 0.29 bc & 13.64 \(\pm\) 2.90 ab & 11.00 \(\pm\) 1.76 ab & 0.0063 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\  & IV & 3.61 \(\pm\) 0.24 bc & 15.59 \(\pm\) 2.46 ab & 12.57 \(\pm\) 2.85 ab & 0.0042 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\ \hline Zeolite & I & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.55 a & 19.92 \(\pm\) 3.19 a & 18.86 \(\pm\) 4.32 a & 0.0055 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\  & II & 4.14 \(\pm\) 0.23 abc & 11.97 \(\pm\) 1.39 b & 10.96 \(\pm\) 2.14 ab & 0.0079 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\  & III & 4.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 ab & 13.25 \(\pm\) 0.74 ab & 14.53 \(\pm\) 1.50 ab & 0.0058 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\  & IV & 4.57 \(\pm\) 0.33 ab & 16.47 \(\pm\) 1.59 ab & 11.77 \(\pm\) 1.22 ab & 0.0064 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\ \hline EM & I & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.42 ab & 17.26 \(\pm\) 0.95 ab & 18.32 \(\pm\) 4.19 a & 0.0058 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\  & II & 3.02 \(\pm\) 0.60 cd & 15.14 \(\pm\) 1.44 ab & 13.61 \(\pm\) 0.96 ab & 0.0031 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\  & III & 4.42 \(\pm\) 0.44 ab & 12.28 \(\pm\) 1.31 b & 9.56 \(\pm\) 1.28 b & 0.0078 \(\pm\) 0.001 a \\  & IV & 3.99 \(\pm\) 0.18 abc & 13.10 \(\pm\) 1.30 ab & 11.73 \(\pm\) 1.02 ab & 0.0051 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* All the values are averages of four replications \(\pm\) standard error. The different letters in the same column show statistically significant differences among the twelve subtreatments according to the test of Duncan (\(p\leq\) 0.05) with the larger values corresponding to the letter “a”. I: no NaCl 1; IN: NaCl 50 mM, III: NaCl 50 mM + seaweed extract spraying, IV: NaCl 50 mM + ceramic powder spraying. EM treatment included compost addition.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Growth parameters of the apple plants at the end of the experiment. NaCl led to fluctuations of the photosynthesis rate, although not statistically significant in all treatments. Thus, the seaweed extract spraying contributed to statistically significantly lower photosynthetic rates in all treatments, with the lowest photosynthetic activity occurring in the subtreatment with zeolite, NaCl, and the seaweed extract solution (zeolite treatment--subtreatment III). The statistically significantly highest value was observed in the plants subjected to the combination of the compost, microorganisms, and ceramic powder spray solution under saline conditions (EM treatment--subtreatment IV). In contrast, in the subtreatment in which ceramic powder was applied (IV), the photosynthetic rate was maintained at similar levels to those of normal conditions in the control treatment; it was statistically significantly lower in the zeolite treatment, while it showed a significantly higher value in the EM treatment (Figure 1a). Figure 1: _Cont._  
The inclusion of zeolite in the substrate affected stomatal conductance, seeing that the statistically significantly highest value was noted in the respective treatment in normal conditions. On the other hand, when plants received compost and microorganisms, the stomatal conductance showed significantly lower values in the absence of salinity. However, the presence of NaCl was not associated with lower stomatal conductance in this experiment since no significant differences in stomatal conductance were recorded between normal and salinity subtreatments in any treatment. Conversely, the algal spraying (III) or the application of the ceramic powder spray solution (IV) led to significantly lower values of the aforementioned parameter in the control or zeolite treatments. The application of algae solution or ceramic powder had no apparent negative effect on the stomatal conductance of the EM-treated plants (Figure 1b).