Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Effects of Organic Fertilizer Addition to Vegetation and Soil Bacterial Communities in Saline–Alkali-Degraded Grassland with Photovoltaic Panels
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Corn (Zea mays L.) Productivity under Varying Water Regimes with At-Plant Application of Xyway Fungicide
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of the PHD Finger Gene Family in Pea (Pisum sativum)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Deciphering Winter Sprouting Potential of Erianthus procerus Derived Sugarcane Hybrids under Subtropical Climates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/plants13111490
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Wheat Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency under Deficit Irrigation by Integrating Foliar Application of Salicylic Acid and Nutrients at Critical Growth Stages

by
Salah El-Hendawy
*,
Nabil Mohammed
and
Nasser Al-Suhaibani
Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(11), 1490; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111490
Submission received: 20 April 2024 / Revised: 23 May 2024 / Accepted: 24 May 2024 / Published: 28 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agronomic Approaches to Alleviating the Destructive Impacts of Abiotic Stress on Field Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Transitioning from full to deficit irrigation (DI) has become a key strategy in arid regions to combat water scarcity and enhance irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE). However, implementing DI requires additional approaches to counter its negative effects on wheat production. One effective approach is the foliar application of salicylic acid (SA), micronutrients (Mic; zinc and manganese), and macronutrients (Mac; nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium). However, there is a lack of knowledge on the optimal combinations and timing of foliar application for these components to maximize their benefits under arid conditions, which is the primary focus of this study. A two-year field study was conducted to assess the impact of the foliar application of SA alone and in combination with Mic (SA + Mic) or Mic and Mac (SA + Mic + Mac) at various critical growth stages on wheat growth, physiology, productivity, and IWUE under DI conditions. Our result demonstrated that the foliar application of different components, the timing of application, and their interaction had significant effects on all investigated wheat parameters with few exceptions. Applying different components through foliar application at multiple growth stages, such as tillering and heading or tillering, heading, and grain filling, led to significant enhancements in various wheat parameters. The improvements ranged from 7.7% to 23.2% for growth parameters, 8.7% to 24.0% for physiological traits, 1.4% to 21.0% for yield and yield components, and 14.8% to 19.0% for IWUE compared to applying the components only at the tillering stage. Plants treated with different components (SA, Mic, Mac) exhibited enhanced growth, production, and IWUE in wheat compared to untreated plants. The most effective treatment was SA + Mic, followed by SA alone and SA + Mic + Mac. The foliar application of SA, SA + Mic, and SA + Mic + Mac improved growth parameters by 1.2–50.8%, 2.7–54.6%, and 2.5–43.9%, respectively. Yield parameters were also enhanced by 1.3–33.0%, 2.4–37.2%, and 3.0–26.6% while IWUE increased by 28.6%, 33.0%, and 18.5% compared to untreated plants. A heatmap analysis revealed that the foliar application of SA + Mic at multiple growth stages resulted in the highest values for all parameters, followed by SA alone and SA + Mic + Mac applications at multiple growth stages. The lowest values were observed in untreated plants and with the foliar application of different components only at the tillering stage. Thus, this study suggested that the foliar application of SA + Mic at various growth stages can help sustain wheat production in arid regions with limited water resources.

1. Introduction

By 2030, the global demand for fresh water is projected to exceed supply by 40%, emphasizing the need for sustainable water management practices, especially in agriculture. Agriculture is the largest consumer of fresh water, comprising 75–80% of total water usage in many countries. Most importantly, countries relying on non-renewable fossil water are facing more frequent water shortages due to climate change, sparse rainfall, high temperatures, population growth, urbanization, and industrialization. Unfortunately, this problem is worsening year by year in arid and semiarid countries. As a result, many governments in these countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have implemented several regulations to reduce water allocation to the agricultural sector and conserve groundwater for upcoming generations, such as installing water meters on pumping stations and implementing pricing for irrigation water [1,2]. These regulations have forced many agricultural companies to switch from full irrigation to deficit irrigation (DI), which means supplying water to crops at levels below their full water requirements. This is because the increased yield from full irrigation did not compensate for the costs of this extra irrigation water [3,4]. However, growing plants under DI conditions has consequences on several morphological, physiological, and biochemical aspects of plants, ultimately leading to a significant reduction in final grain yield (GY). In wheat crops, this reduction can exceed 50% [5,6,7,8]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to apply effective strategies to mitigate the negative effects of DI on the growth and production of wheat crop.
Due to the close relationship between nutrient and water uptake, plants are unable to effectively uptake, transport, and metabolize many macronutrients (Mac) and micronutrients (Mic) under DI conditions. Studies have shown a decreased uptake and translocation of essential Mac, such as N, P, and K, in different plant crops under DI conditions [9,10,11,12]. For example, Bista et al. [13] found that subjecting drought-sensitive barley and corn genotypes to DI conditions led to a significant decrease in N and P concentrations by 44–51% and 39–48%, respectively. A reduced amount of K was also observed in several crops that were subjected to DI [14]. Under deficit irrigation, Mic deficiencies may occur, as they are converted to less soluble forms. Conversely, in moist soil conditions, Mic are converted to more soluble and reduced forms [10,15]. Generally, the decrease in Mac and Mic uptake under DI conditions may be due to reduced water content in plants, leading to stomatal closure and decreased transpiration rates. This limits nutrient uptake by roots and their transport to shoots. Additionally, low soil moisture reduces nutrient diffusion and mass flow in the soil, inhibits root growth, and decreases nutrient inflow per unit of root length and biomass. Furthermore, low soil moisture reduces nutrient uptake by decreasing nutrient mineralization and inhibiting the active transport and membrane permeability of cations, which in turn leads to the decreased absorption of cations through the roots [16,17,18,19]. Therefore, it can be concluded that the reduced uptake and transport of essential nutrients in plants is a common issue under water-deficient situations. Due to the significant roles of Mac and Mic nutrients in mitigating the negative effects of drought stress on crop growth and production, through their involvement in various physiological and biochemical processes in plants, their foliar application could be a practical and cost-effective method to improve wheat performance under DI conditions. Previous studies have demonstrated that applying Mac and/or Mic nutrients to the leaves can improve crop growth and yield in water-deficient conditions [20,21,22,23,24]. However, most of these studies were conducted in controlled pot experiments, and there is limited research to support the use of foliar nutrient application to reduce DI in field conditions under arid climates. This study aims to address this gap in the literature.
When plants experience water deficit stress conditions, it disrupts several physiological and biochemical processes, including photosynthesis, biomass accumulation, hormonal and nutrient balance, chlorophyll biosynthesis, and water relations. This ultimately leads to a significant reduction in crop growth and yield [7,8,25]. Several plants respond to water deficit stress by producing some important signaling molecules, such as salicylic acid (SA). SA acts as a phytohormone and helps plants adapt to various abiotic stressors. SA plays a crucial role in regulating important physiological and metabolic processes in plants, such as photosynthesis, transpiration, cell growth, plant development, water uptake, ion transport, osmotic adjustments, stomatal opening, and defense mechanisms [26,27,28]. Therefore, applying SA externally could be a practical and cost-effective approach to enhance wheat growth and production under DI conditions. Numerous studies have confirmed the positive impacts of the exogenously foliar application of SA on the growth and production attributes of different field crops under water deficit stress. For example, the exogenous application of SA improves the growth and yield attributes of different cereal crops under water deficit conditions by increasing relative water content, photosynthetic pigments and activities, stomatal conductance, water and nutrient use efficiency, and antioxidant capacity [29,30,31,32,33,34].
The foliar application of Mic and Mac can help reduce the negative effects of water deficit stress. Additionally, the exogenous application of SA can alleviate drought stress and enhance defense mechanisms against it. Therefore, combining SA, Mic, and Mac applications may be more effective in improving plant growth and productivity compared to applying each one alone. For example, spraying wheat plants with SA and zinc reduced the negative effects of water deficiency, leading to increased chlorophyll content, relative water content, plant height, spike length, number of grains per spike, 1000-grain weight, grain yield, and water use efficiency [35]. Likewise, Alotaibi et al. [36] concluded that combining micronutrients with SA is more effective in enhancing the growth, yield parameters, and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) of wheat plants under water deficit compared to using these compounds individually. Safar-Noori et al. [37] found that combining SA with a sufficient amount of K enhanced wheat growth and production under drought stress more effectively than applying them separately. Therefore, in this study, we hypothesize that combining foliar applications of SA and plant nutrients can effectively mitigate the effects of drought-induced stress in wheat compared to applying each treatment separately. This integrated approach may have synergistic effects in alleviating the negative impacts of drought stress on the various morpho-agro-physiological traits of wheat.
In wheat, several growth stages are sensitive to water deficit stress. Early water deficit stress can reduce the number of plants and tillers per unit area, ultimately leading to a lower yield potential, including a decrease in the number of spikes per square meter [38,39]. Water deficit stress during the stem elongation stage has a negative impact on fertility and floret formation, ultimately leading to a decrease in the number of grains per spike. Additionally, post-anthesis water deficit stress reduces the rate and duration of grain filling, resulting in a decrease in 1000-grain weight [40]. The final grain yield is determined by two major components: grain number per unit area and grain weight. The grain number per unit area is determined during the pre-anthesis stage, while the grain weight is determined at the post-anthesis stage. Therefore, water deficit stress at both stages can lead to yield losses of up to 69% [7]. Research has shown that the number of plants per unit area, the number of spikes per plant, and the number of grains per spike contribute 20%, 29%, and 51%, respectively, to the grain number per unit area [41,42]. This also reflects that water deficit stress at the pre-anthesis stage can result in a significant reduction in the final yield of wheat. To reduce the negative effects of water deficit stress on wheat, it is important to target the most sensitive growth stages. As mentioned earlier, the foliar application of SA, Mac, and Mic can effectively mitigate these effects. Therefore, with exogenous applications of these components and by targeting the most water-sensitive growth stages, the negative impacts of DI stress on wheat growth and production can be effectively minimized. However, previous studies have shown that although water deficit stress affects the growth and productivity of wheat at different growth stages, the efficiency of the exogenous application of these components in alleviating this stress varies with different growth stages [19,43]. For instance, Ning et al. [43] reported that the foliar application of silicon (Si) to wheat crops during the reproductive stage was more effective in mitigating the adverse effects of drought stress on physiological traits and grain yield as opposed to applying it during the jointing stage. Gong et al. [44] found that the foliar application of Si is more effective in enhancing wheat defense against oxidative stress during drought when applied at the grain filling stage, with minimal impact when applied at the booting stage. However, in other studies, it was reported that the booting to anthesis growth stages in wheat are optimal for the foliar application of micronutrients (such as Zn, Mn, and B) to enhance wheat production under drought stress, especially when drought occurs during the late growth stage [45,46]. Khan et al. [47] also found that the foliar application of micronutrients at multiple growth stages, from tillering to heading, significantly enhanced the growth and yield of wheat under drought stress. Therefore, in this study, we assume that when the foliar application of SA and/or plant nutrients coincides with the growth stages most sensitive to water stress, it will help overcome the negative impacts of DI stress efficiently.
In this context, the main objective of this study was to investigate how the foliar application of different combinations of SA, Mic, and Mac at various sensitive growth stages of wheat affects its growth, yield, and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE). The goal was to find the most effective combinations and optimal timing for application to improve wheat production under DI conditions.

2. Results

2.1. Growth Parameters

Table 1 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effects of seasons (S), application time (AT), foliar application treatments (F), and their possible interaction on different growth parameters measured at 95 and 115 days after sowing (DAS). The effect of S and its interaction with F on all growth parameters was not significant. The interaction with AT was also not significant except for the green leaf number (GLN) at 95 DAS and the tiller number (TN) at 115 DAS. The AT treatment had a significant effect on all parameters except plant height (PH) at 95 and 115 DAS and TN at 95 DAS. Similarly, the F treatment had a significant effect on all parameters except TN at 95 DAS.
The results in Table 1 show that applying different components at both the tillering and heading stages (T + H), as well as the tillering, heading, and grain filling stages (T + H + G), resulted in enhanced growth parameters at 95 and DAS compared to applying them only at the tillering stage (T). On average over two seasons, applying components at T + H and T + H + G resulted in improvements in growth parameters by 13.5–18.7% and 12.7–19.2% at 95 DAS and 7.7–18.6% and 9.2–23.2% at 115 DAS, respectively, compared to applying them at the stage (Table 1). Regardless of the application time, the foliar application of different components significantly improved all growth parameters except TN at 95 DAS compared to the control treatment. The highest values for all growth parameters were observed with the foliar application of SA and Mic (SA + Mic), followed by SA, Mic, and Mac (SA + Mic + Mac) or SA alone. On average over two seasons, the foliar application of SA, SA + Mic, and SA + Mic + Mac improved various growth parameters by 1.2–28.6%, 2.7–31.8%, and 2.5–24.6% at 95 DAS, and 3.5–50.8%, 4.1–54.6%, and 4.6–43.9% at 115 DAS, respectively, compared to the control treatment (Table 1).
The combined effect of AT and F on different growth parameters reveals that applying the different components at the T stage only resulted in a slight improvement compared to the control treatment. However, a significant improvement was observed when the components were applied at multiple growth stages (T + H and T + H + G). The highest growth parameters were observed with the foliar application of SA+Mic and SA alone at the T + H + G stages, followed by SA + Mic at the T + H stages. SA alone at the T + H stages showed comparable values for growth parameters to SA + Mic + Mac at the T + H + G stages (Figure 1).

2.2. Physiological Parameters

The ANOVA analysis showed that AT, F, and their interaction had a significant effect (p ≤ 0.001) on relative water content (RWC) and different chlorophyll (Chl) contents at 95 and 115 DAS. However, S had a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) only on total Chl contents (Chlt) at 115 DAS (Table 2). The interaction between S and AT had a significant effect on RWC at 95 DAS but not at 115 DAS; the opposite was true for different Chl contents. The interaction between S and F significantly affected the RWC and different Chl levels at 95 DAS and only Chl-b at 115 DAS. The three-way interaction between AT, F, and S did not significantly affect the RWC and Chl contents at 95 or 115 DAS (Table 2).
The results in Table 2 show that the effectiveness of the foliar application of different components in improving RWC and Chl contents under DI conditions depends on the timing of their application. Applying them at multiple growth stages is more effective than applying them at only a single stage. The foliar application of different components at T + H or T + H + G growth stages enhanced RWC and Chl contents by 12.1–17.7% and 14.0–18.2% at 95 DAS and by 8.7–19.0% and 10.6–24.0% at 115 DAS, respectively, compared to applying them only at the T stage (Table 2). Regardless of AT, the foliar application of SA alone or in combination with Mic and/or Mac had a positive effect on the RWC and different Chl contents under DI conditions. The foliar application of SA, SA + Mic, and SA + Mic + Mac significantly enhanced RWC, Chla, Chlb, and Chlt by 15.9–18.3%, 60.5–63.3%, 31.0–32.4%, and 50.5–52.7% at 95 DAS and by 27.6–32.5%, 68.9–78.4%, 68.8–75.1%, and 67.3–76.4% at 115 DAS, respectively, compared to the non-treated treatment (Table 2). Additionally, the effects of different components on RWC and Chl contents also depend on the AT. In general, RWC and Chl contents were significantly improved by the foliar application of different components at T + H and T + H + G growth stages compared to foliar application at the T stage alone (Figure 2).
When applied at the T stage, there was no significant difference between the foliar application of SA, SA + Mic, and SA + Mic + Mac. However, when applied at T + H or T + H + G, the highest values for RWC and different Chl contents were obtained with the foliar application of SA + Mic at T + H and T + H + G, followed by the foliar application of SA alone at T + H + G and SA + Mic + Mac at the T + H growth stage (Figure 2).

2.3. Yield Parameters and Irrigation Water Use Efficiency

The F-test from the ANOVA showed that AT, F, and their interaction had a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01) on all yield parameters and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) except for spike length (SL) and biological yield (BY). The F did not have a significant effect on SL, and the interaction between AT and F did not have a significant effect on SL and BY (Table 3). The S and their interaction with AT and F as well as the three-way interaction (F × AT × S) did not have a significant effect on all yield parameters and IWUE except for BY, which was affected by S (Table 3).
The results in Table 3 show that applying a foliar treatment at multiple growth stages is more effective in improving yield parameters and IWUE compared to applying it only at one early growth stage. Foliar application at T + H and T + H + G increased the spike length (SL) by 1.4% and 3.5%, the grain weight per spike (GWPS) by 13.3% and 21.0%, the grain number per spike (GNPS) by 5.7% and 11.6%, the thousand grain weight (TGW) by 6.3% and 7.2%, the grain yield per ha (GY) by 14.7% and 18.7%, the biological yield per ha (BY) by 8.0% and 10.0%, the harvest index (HI) by 5.8% and 7.5%, and IWUE by 14.8% and 19.0%, respectively, compared to foliar application at only the T stage. The results in Table 3 also show that the foliar application of SA, either alone or in combination with Mic.
Mac increased yield parameters and IWUE compared to untreated plants. The highest values for yield parameters and IWUE were observed when plants were treated with a combination of SA and Mic, followed by plants treated with SA alone. Plants treated with SA, SA + Mic, and SA + Mic + Mac showed increases in several yield parameters and IWUE compared to untreated plants. Specifically, they had higher SL by 1.3%, 2.4%, and 3.0%; greater GWPS by 33.0%, 37.2%, and 26.6%; increased GNPS by 11.9%, 13.1%, and 9.7%; higher TGW by 17.5%, 20.1%, and 14.4%; greater GY by 28.9%, 33.2%, and 18.9%; higher BY by 13.1%, 13.8%, and 13.3%; increased HI by 13.2%, 16.5%, and 4.7%; and improved IWUE by 28.6%, 33.0%, and 18.5%, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the impact of the interaction between AT and F on yield parameters and IWUE. In general, applying SA alone or in combination with Mic and/or Mac at the T stage did not effectively improve yield parameters and IWUE only compared to applications at multiple stages (T + H and T + H + G). The highest values for yield parameters and IWUE were achieved when SA was sprayed alone or in combination with Mic at the T + H + G growth stage, followed by the application of SA + Mic at the T + H growth stage. The application of SA alone at the T + H growth stage was more effective in improving yield parameters and IWUE compared to the combined application of SA with Mic and Mac at either the T + H or T + H + G growth stages (Figure 3).

2.4. Heatmap Clustering Analysis

The heatmap clustering analysis (HCA) was performed using 24 parameters and 12 treatments, which included various combinations of AT and F (Figure 4). The HCA divided the 12 treatments into four groups. The foliar application of SA alone at the T + H + G growth stage or in combination with Mic applied at either T + H or T + H + G were grouped together and produced the highest values for almost all 24 parameters. The treatments involving the foliar application of SA, either alone or in combination with Mic and Mac at the T stage only, were grouped together and resulted in the lowest values for all parameters. The three untreated treatments (control) were grouped together and showed a negative correlation with all the studied parameters. HCA indicated that applying SA with both Mic and Mac at multiple growth stages improved various agro-physiological and yield parameters as well as IWUE. However, these treatments were not as effective as applying SA alone or in combination with Mic alone at multiple growth stages (Figure 4).

3. Discussion

Transitioning from full to deficit irrigation (DI) has become an important strategy in arid and semiarid countries to conserve non-renewable groundwater. However, exposing crops to DI conditions can reduce their production by over 50%, as observed in wheat crop [6,7,8,42]. Most importantly, water deficit can also cause nutrient deficiencies in plants by reducing the availability, uptake, translocation, and metabolism of essential Mic and Mac nutrients [19,48,49]. This indicates that when water deficit and nutrient deficiency stress occur together, it can significantly decrease wheat yield under DI conditions. A study by Bagci et al. [50] found that drought stress significantly reduced wheat crop yield in zinc-deficient plants. Therefore, several studies have suggested that balanced plant mineral nutrients are crucial for improving crop growth and productivity and mitigating the negative effects of water deficit stress in a sustainable manner [9,51,52]. Additionally, the foliar application of compatible solutes, such as SA, can also play a crucial role in mitigating the negative impacts of water deficit stress on various physiological and biochemical processes in plants [53,54,55]. Therefore, the exogenous application of SA and essential plant nutrients can be a cost-effective way to improve the growth and production of wheat under DI conditions. However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on several factors, such as the concentration, timing, and method of application as well as any synergistic effects [56,57,58,59]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of applying SA alone and in combination with plant nutrients during sensitive growth stages of wheat on agro-physiological and yield parameters as well as IWUE under DI conditions.
Previous studies have demonstrated that water deficit stress has a significant impact on different growth stages of wheat plants, including tillering, stem elongation, heading, anthesis, and grain filling. The yield components that contribute to the final grain yield (GY) vary at each growth stage, and the severity of the water deficit stress depends on how these components are impacted [60,61,62,63,64]. The final GY of wheat is determined by the number of tillers and spikes per plant, the number of spikelets per spike, and the number and weight of grains per spike [61,62]. The spike number per plant is closely associated with the tillering capacity. Additionally, water deficit and nutrient deficiency during the tillering stage can result in more aborted or infertile tillers, reducing the total number of spikes per plant [64,65,66]. Importantly, spikelet initiation begins in the seedling stage and continues into the tillering stage, while floret initiation starts during tillering and extends into the stem elongation stages [62]. Therefore, water deficit stress during the early growth stages of wheat (tillering and stem elongation) can significantly reduce the number of spikelets and spikes per plant, ultimately affecting the final GY. Thus, it is essential to mitigate the negative impacts of water deficit stress in wheat during the vegetative stage to optimize GY. Therefore, in this study, we included tillering growth stages in all treatments to evaluate the impact of different application timings of various components. Water deficit stress during pre-anthesis stress can decrease the number of spikelets per spike. Post-anthesis and grain filling stress can lead to a reduction in the number and weight of grains [60,67,68,69,70].
The above evidence indicates the exogenous application of SA and plant nutrients can help mitigate the negative effects of water deficit stress, particularly when applied during the most sensitive growth stages. The results of this study indicate that the exogenous application of SA, Mic, and Mac at multiple growth stages was more effective in improving wheat growth, physiology, yield, and IWUE compared to applying them at a single growth stage (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Additionally, the foliar application of these components at the late growth stage (heading and grain filling) was more effective than applying them at the early growth stage (tillering) (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Because water deficit stress during anthesis and grain filling stages has the greatest impact on yield loss, this may explain why the foliar application of different components is more effective when applied at heading and grain filling stages. It is important to note that the anthesis and grain filling stages are non-compensatory growth stages in wheat crops. This means that any yield components determined around both stages, such as grain number and weight, will be significantly affected by water deficit stress. This also confirms the importance of the foliar application of SA and plant nutrients at the heading and grain filling stages in this study in mitigating the negative impacts of DI conditions. Similarly, previous research has shown that the most effective method to enhance crop production under water deficit conditions is by applying SA and plant nutrients to the leaves during the late-season growth stages, particularly from heading to grain filling stages. Foliar application during these stages has been shown to have a positive impact on grain yield and its components, such as GWPS, GNPS, and TGW. In contrast, foliar application during the tillering stage did not have a significant effect on final grain yield [27,46,49,71,72]. Karim et al. [49] also found that applying micronutrients (Mn, B, and Zn) to cereal crops during the booting to grain filling stage helped to mitigate yield loss caused by drought stress. Therefore, we can conclude that the timing of applying SA and plant nutrition is crucial for improving wheat production under DI conditions. Applying these components multiple times during the late growth stage effectively mitigates the negative impacts of water deficit stress on wheat growth, physiology, production, and water use efficiency (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). The effectiveness of the foliar application of SA and/or Mic and Mac at the late growth stage in enhancing the growth and production of wheat under DI conditions may be attributed to several factors. First, the foliar application of these components during heading and grain filling stages helps the flag leaf survive longer and delays early leaf senescence. This leads to better grain numbers, grain weight, and TGW, which are main components for final grain yield [73,74,75]. Second, the foliar application of these components at later stages facilitates the remobilization of assimilates from the leaves and stems to the grains, resulting in increased grain weight and TGW [76]. Third, the foliar application of these components at later stages improves the duration and rate of grain filling, leading to an increase in grain weight and TGW. Fourth, due to the important role of Mic nutrients, such as zinc and boron, in pollen viability and grain setting, the foliar application of these nutrients at later stages increases the number and weight of grains per spike [77]. Lastly, the foliar application of Mic nutrients at later stages improves the development of the fine root system, resulting in improved water use efficiency and crop yield [12,49].
In this study, it was also found that the foliar application of SA alone or in combination with Mic and/or Mac improved the growth, yield, and IWUE of wheat under DI conditions compared to untreated plants. Furthermore, the use of SA alone or in combination with Mic was more effective than the combination of SA with both Mic and Mac nutrients (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). Treating plants with these components under water deficit stress has a positive effect because they play a central role in regulating several physiological and biochemical processes within the plant. For example, SA is known to regulate various physiological processes in plants, such as water uptake, transpiration, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, cell membrane stability, plant pigments, hormone synthesis, reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging, osmolyte accumulation, and ion and photosynthetic product translocation [78,79,80,81]. It also plays a crucial role in improving plant water status and water use efficiency by increasing leaf diffusive resistance and reducing transpiration rates [82]. Additionally, the application of SA has been found to promote cell division and enlargement, leading to improved growth, development, and ultimately yield-related parameters under water deficit stress [31,83]. Hafez [84] also noted that the foliar application of SA increased the flow of metabolites to developing grains, resulting in a higher number of grains per spike and higher TGW. These various important functions of SA may explain why its foliar application alone improved the growth, yield, and IWUE of wheat under DI conditions in this study.
It is interesting to note that several Mic nutrients are involved in various physiological processes related to tolerance to water deficit stress. For instance, zinc (Zn), boron (B), and manganese (Mn) are essential for maintaining photosynthetic activity and the function of enzymes that are sensitive to water deficit stress, as well as for preserving membrane integrity [10,51,85]. Additionally, they are crucial for protecting plants against ROS produced during abiotic stress [86]. They also play a prominent role in cell division, metabolism, carbohydrate transport, ion absorption, water relations, growth hormone synthesis, pollen viability, and enzyme activity [10,49,85,87]. Water deficit stress during the anthesis growth stage can harm the development of male reproductive organs in cereal crops and reduce the translocation of assimilates from shoots to spikes as well as pollen viability. However, these negative effects can be lessened by boosting levels of micronutrients, such as Mn, B, and Zn, in the plants at this stage [49]. Previous studies have also shown that the foliar application of Mic nutrients under water deficit stress not only prevents nutrient deficiency in plant tissue but is also important in helping plants to absorb water and enhance WUE by promoting root system development and root hair growth [24,88,89]. All aforementioned facts about the important role of Mic nutrients in mitigating the negative impact of water deficit stress may explain why the foliar application of Mic nutrients with SA improved the growth, yield, and IWUE of wheat under DI conditions in this study.
Interestingly, this study showed that combining Mac nutrients (N, P, and K) with SA and Mic nutrients (SA + Mic + Mac) improved wheat growth, production, and IWUE under DI conditions but not as much as treatments with only SA or a combination of SA and Mic nutrients. These results indicate that Mac nutrients are less effective than SA and Mic in enhancing wheat growth, production, and water use efficiency under DI conditions. The limited effectiveness of the foliar application of Mac nutrients under DI conditions may be due to their promotion of vegetative growth and leaf area, which increases water loss through transpiration. Additionally, some mineral nutrients, such as P and Zn, can have significant antagonistic effects, meaning that the ability of one nutrient to mitigate the negative effects of water deficit stress may be diminished by the presence of the other [90]. Furthermore, Dass et al. [85] found that hormonal changes or loss of anabolic enzymes can prevent the effective use of the foliar application of nitrogen. They also observed that the foliar application of urea can cause leaf burn (leaf tip necrosis) and result in a significant decrease in yield. Prasertsak and Fukai [91] found that the application of nitrogen to rice crops resulted in rapid water deficit stress. This was evidenced by a decrease in leaf water potential and a high rate of leaf mortality during the stress period. However, other studies found that applying Mac nutrients, such as N, P, Ca, and K, through foliar application alone can enhance the yield and yield components of various field crops when they are subjected to drought stress [52,92,93,94]. These differences in the effectiveness of the foliar application of Mac nutrients in alleviating water deficit stress may be attributed to variations in climate conditions and crop types among studies. Additionally, most research on this topic has been conducted in controlled pot experiments, with limited evidence supporting the use of foliar nutrient application to alleviate water deficit stress in field conditions. Therefore, the recommendation to use foliar nutrient application to reduce water deficit stress should be based on specific experimental conditions.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Experimental Site Description and Cultivation Conditions

Two field experiments were carried out during the winter seasons from December to April in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 at the Agricultural Research Farm of the Plant Production Department, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (24°25′03″ N 46°39′17″ E), 570 m above sea level. The soil of the research farm is sandy loam texture and consist of 57.92% sand, 28.65% silt, and 13.42% clay. The experimental site has arid climatic conditions, with an annual precipitation rate of about 30 mm and low humidity. Figure 5 shows the monthly average meteorological data for temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation at the experimental site over two winter seasons.
The spring wheat variety Summit was hand-sown on December 8 in the first season and December 1 in the second season. The seeds, uniform in size and plump, were sown at a rate of 150 kg ha−1 in eight rows, each 4 m long and 20 cm apart. Before sowing, the soil was plowed twice, leveled, and divided into three plots, each of which represented a repetition. Each replicate was divided into three main plots (8.8 m × 4 m), and each main plot was divided into four subplots (1.6 m × 4 m) with a buffer zone of 80 cm between the two adjacent subplots. Phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and nitrogen (N) fertilizers were applied in the form of calcium superphosphate (17% P2O5), potassium sulfate (50% K2O), and urea (46.5% N), respectively. All P (60 kg P2O5 ha−1) was applied at sowing time, while K (60 kg K2O ha−1) was applied in two equal doses at the seedling and stem elongation stages. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied in three equal doses at seedling, stem elongation, and booting stages at a rate of 180 kg N ha−1. The crop was managed with regard to pest and weed control as needed and at the appropriate time.
Effects of different treatments of this study on growth, yield, and physiological traits of wheat were evaluated under deficit irrigation (DI). The DI was calculated based on 50% of estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc) of wheat crop. Daily ETc was calculated by multiplying the daily reference evapotranspiration rate (ETo) by the crop coefficient (Kc) of wheat crop. We used the modified Penman–Monteith equation and daily weather data uploaded from a nearby station to calculate the daily ETo. The Kc values for the main growth stages of spring wheat from FAO-56 [95] were modified to fit the climate of the experimental site. According to this calculation, the total irrigation volume applied for DI was 3250 and 3300 m3 ha−1 in the first and second seasons, respectively. The irrigation was scheduled when the available soil water level for the plants dropped to 30%. Irrigation water was applied using a low-pressure surface irrigation system designed for small plots.

4.2. Experimental Design and Treatments

The study used a randomized complete block design with a split-plot arrangement and three replications. The main plot included three foliar application timings: tillering (T), tillering and heading (T + H), and tillering, heading, and grain filling (T + H + G) stages. The subplots consisted of three foliar components: salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (N-P-K), and micronutrients (Zn and Mn). These components were combined to create different treatments: control (foliar pure water), SA foliar application, SA + micronutrient (Mic) foliar application, and SA + Mic + macronutrient (Mac) foliar application. Foliar application of SA was applied at a concentration of 2.0 mM as HOC6H4COOH. The Mic (Zn and Mn) were applied as ZnSO4.7H2O and MnSO4.3H2O at concentrations of 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively. The three Mac were applied at a concentration of 1.0%. Salicylic acid was dissolved in absolute ethanol, while the other components were dissolved in distilled water to make a stock. Then, the appropriate quantities of this stock were gently added to the distilled water to make spray solutions with the required concentrations. The various prepared solutions, each with 0.1% Tween-20, were sprayed directly onto the plant leaves until they were completely covered and the solutions ran off leaves. The different solutions were sprayed using back-mounted pressurized sprayer (16 L) with a T-jet nozzle. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 15 mL s−1 at a pressure of 207 kPa.

4.3. Data Recorded

4.3.1. Growth Parameters

At 95 and 115 days after sowing, we randomly selected ten plants from each subplot to measure PH, TN, PFW, and GLN. Then, we used an area meter (LI 3100; LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) to measure the leaf area per plant. To determine the PDW, we oven-dried all components of the ten plants at 80 °C until a constant weight was achieved.

4.3.2. Physiological Parameters

Five leaves from the upper plant’s second leaf were randomly selected, and their fresh weight (FW) was immediately measured. The leaves were then soaked in distilled water for 24 h in the dark, and their turgor weight (TW) was determined after removing surface water. The leaves were dried at 80 °C for 72 h to obtain their dry weight (DW). The relative water content of the leaves (RWC) was calculated using the following formula:
RWC = (FW − DW)/(TW − DW) × 100
Chlorophyll pigments (Chl a, Chl b, and Chlt) were quantified using the method outlined by Arnon [96] and Lichtenthaler [97]. Fresh leaf samples (0.5 g) were immersed in 80% acetone in the dark until colorless. The extract was then centrifuged, and the absorbance was measured at 645 and 663 nm using a spectrophotometer (UV-2550, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan). The concentrations of Chl a, Chl b, and Chlt were calculated in mg g−1 FW using the following equations:
Chl a = [(12.7 × A663) − (2.69 × A645)] × V/1000 × FW
Chl b = [(22.9 × A645) − (4.68 × A663)] × V/1000 × FW.
Chl t = [(20.2 × A645) + (8.02 × A663)] × V/1000 × FW
where A is the absorbance at specific wavelengths, V is the final volume of extract (ml), and FW is the fresh weight of tissue extracted (g).

4.3.3. Yield and Yield Components

Fifty spikes were randomly selected from each subplot to measure SL, GWS, NGPS, and TGW at maturity in mid-April for both seasons. The inner five rows of each subplot (3 m2) were manually harvested, sun-dried, and weighed to determine BY in kg per 3.0 m2, converted to ton ha−1. The spikes of harvested area were threshed, and grains were collected, cleaned, dried, and weighed to determine GY in kg per 3.0 m2, also converted to ton ha−1. Harvest index (HI) was calculated as GY divided by BY, while IWUE was calculated as GY divided by ETc.

4.4. Data Analysis

Analysis of variance was conducted for both growing seasons using a split plot arrangement with a randomized complete plot design. Prior to analysis, the data were tested for distribution and variance homogeneity to ensure uniform error variance across the two growing seasons. The statistical program Costa (version 6.45, CoHort Software, VSN International Ltd., Oxford, UK) was used to conduct analysis of variance (ANOVA) and determine differences using the F-test. The post hoc test (Tukey’s test) at the 0.05 significance level was used to distinguish differences among the mean values. The heatmap clustering analysis was generated using R Studio software (version 2022.12.0+353, R Core Team, 2022) to visualize the integration of parameters across different treatments. Figures were created using Sigma Plot software (version 14.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of using an effective and complementary approach to improve wheat growth, productivity, and IWUE in arid regions under DI conditions. The exogenous foliar application of SA and nutrients has been found to be a successful approach for mitigating the negative effects of DI. Determining the best combinations of SA and nutrients as well as the timing of their application during key wheat growth stages is crucial for maximizing the benefits and enhancing wheat crop performance in arid regions with limited water resources. Our study showed that combining foliar SA with Mic nutrients enhanced wheat performance more effectively than using SA alone or in combination with both Mic and Mac nutrients. Additionally, we found that applying different components foliarly at only one early growth stage (tillering stage) did not provide any advantages. However, the foliar application of various components during both tillering and heading stages or during three stages (tillering, heading, and grain filling) resulted in the greatest benefits for enhancing wheat growth, production, and IWUE under DI conditions. In conclusion, this study suggests that applying SA and Mic foliarly at various growth stages can be a beneficial and supportive method to maintain wheat production under DI conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.E.-H., N.M. and N.A.-S.; methodology, S.E.-H., N.A.-S. and N.M.; software, S.E.-H., N.M. and N.A.-S.; validation, S.E.-H., N.M. and N.A.-S.; formal analysis, S.E.-H. and N.M.; investigation, S.E.-H. and N.M.; resources, S.E.-H., N.A.-S. and N.M.; data curation, S.E.-H., N.M. and N.A.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.E.-H.; writing—review and editing, S.E.-H.; visualization, S.E.-H.; supervision, S.E.-H.; project administration, S.E.-H.; funding acquisition, S.E.-H. and N.A.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R730), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

All data are presented in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R730), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Options for Decoupling Economic Growth from Water Use and Water Pollution. 2017. Available online: https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/options-decoupling-economic-growth-water-use-and-water-pollution (accessed on 2 May 2024).
  2. Wu, B.; Tian, F.; Zhang, M.; Piao, S.; Zeng, H.; Zhu, W.; Liu, J.; Elnashar, A.; Lu, Y. Quantifying global agricultural water appropriation with data derived from earth observations. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 358, 131891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fereres, E.; Soriano, M.A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. El-Hendawy, S.E.; Hassan, W.M.; Al-Suhaibani, N.A.; Schmidhalter, U. Spectral assessment of drought tolerance indices and grain yield in advanced spring wheat lines grown under full and limited water irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 182, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ali, O.A. Wheat responses and tolerance to drought stress. In Wheat Production in Changing Environments; Hasanuzzaman, M., Nahar, K., Hossain, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 129–138. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhao, W.; Liu, L.; Shen, Q.; Yang, J.; Han, X.; Tian, F.; Wu, J. Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, yield, and water use efficiency in winter wheat. Water 2020, 12, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shahgholi, S.; Sayfzadeh, S.; Hadidi Masouleh, E.; Shahsavari, N.; Zakerin, H. Assessment of zinc, boron, and iron foliar application on wheat yield and yield components under drought stress. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2023, 54, 1283–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nyaupane, S.; Poudel, M.R.; Panthi, B.; Dhakal, A.; Paudel, H.; Bhandari, R. Drought stress effect, tolerance, and management in wheat—A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2024, 10, 2296094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hussain, H.A.; Hussain, S.; Khaliq, A.; Ashraf, U.; Anjum, S.A.; Men, S.; Wang, L. Chilling and drought stresses in crop plants: Implications, cross talk, and potential management opportunities. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kumari, V.V.; Banerjee, P.; Verma, V.C.; Sukumaran, S.; Chandran, M.A.S.; Gopinath, K.A.; Venkatesh, G.; Yadav, S.K.; Singh, V.K.; Awasthi, N.K. Plant nutrition: An effective way to alleviate abiotic stress in agricultural crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kapoor, D.; Bhardwaj, S.; Landi, M.; Sharma, A.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Sharma, A. The impact of drought in plant metabolism: How to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Kobayashi, N.; Fujita, D.; Basra, S. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Sustain. Agric. 2009, 153–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bista, D.R.; Heckathorn, S.A.; Jayawardena, D.M.; Mishra, S.; Boldt, J.K. Effects of drought on nutrient uptake and the levels of nutrient-uptake proteins in roots of drought-sensitive and-tolerant grasses. Plants 2018, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.B.; Nahar, K.; Hossain, M.S.; Mahmud, J.A.; Hossen, M.S.; Masud, A.A.C.; Fujita, M. Potassium: A vital regulator of plant responses and tolerance to abiotic stresses. Agronomy 2018, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sardans, J.; Penuelas, J.; Ogaya, R. Drought’s impact on Ca, Fe, Mg, Mo and S concentration and accumulation patterns in the plants and soil of a Mediterranean evergreen Quercus ilex forest. Biogeochemistry 2008, 87, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sanaullah, M.; Rumpel, C.; Charrier, X.; Chabbi, A. How does drought stress influence the decomposition of plant litter with contrasting quality in a grassland ecosystem? Plant Soil 2012, 352, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bassirirad, H. Kinetics of nutrient uptake by roots: Responses to global change. New Phytol. 2000, 147, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Christophe, S.; Jean-Christophe, A.; Annabelle, L.; Alain, O.; Marion, P.; Anne-Sophie, V. Plant N fluxes and modulation by nitrogen, heat and water stresses: A review based on comparison of legumes and non legume plants. Abiotic Stress Plants–Mech. Adapt. 2011, 79–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Siddique, K.H.M. Drought stress in wheat during flowering and grain-filling periods. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2014, 33, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zolfaghari Gheshlaghi, M.; Pasari, B.; Shams, K.; Rokhzadi, A.; Mohammadi, K. The effect of micronutrient foliar application on yield, seed quality and some biochemical traits of soybean cultivars under drought stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 2715–2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sharifi Kalyani, F.; Siosemardeh, A.; Hosseinpanahi, F.; Jalali-Honarmand, S. Effect of nutrients foliar application on physiological traits, morphological traits, radiation use efficiency, and grain yield of dryland wheat. Gesunde Pflanz. 2023, 75, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moradi, L.; Siosemardeh, A. Combination of seed priming and nutrient foliar application improved physiological attributes, grain yield, and biofortification of rainfed wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hussain, R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Nawaz, F.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Waraich, E.A. Foliar NK application mitigates drought effects in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Acta Physiol. Plant. 2016, 38, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amanullah; Khair Muhammad, K.; Azam, K.; Imran, K.; Zahir, S.; Zahid, H. Growth and yield response of maize (Zea mays L.) to foliar NPK-fertilizers under moisture stress condition. Soil Environ. 2014, 33, 116–123. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ding, Z.; Kheir, A.M.; Ali, O.A.; Hafez, E.M.; ElShamey, E.A.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, B.; Ge, Y.; Fahmy, A.E.; Seleiman, M.F. A vermicompost and deep tillage system to improve saline-sodic soil quality and wheat productivity. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 277, 111388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Khalvandi, M.; Siosemardeh, A.; Roohi, E.; Keramati, S. Salicylic acid alleviated the effect of drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and leaf protein pattern in winter wheat. Heliyon 2021, 7, e05908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Maghsoudi, K.; Emam, Y.; Ashraf, M.; Arvin, M.J. Alleviation of field water stress in wheat cultivars by using silicon and salicylic acid applied separately or in combination. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2019, 70, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, H.; Fang, R.; Luo, L.; Yang, W.; Huang, Q.; Yang, C.; Hui, W.; Gong, W.; Wang, J. Uncovering the mechanisms of salicylic acid-mediated abiotic stress tolerance in horticultural crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1226041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. El Sherbiny, H.A.; El-Hashash, E.F.; Abou El-Enin, M.M.; Nofal, R.S.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Bleih, E.M.; El-Saadony, M.T.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; Shaaban, A. Exogenously applied salicylic acid boosts morpho-physiological traits, yield, and water productivity of lowland rice under normal and deficit irrigation. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Azmat, A.; Yasmin, H.; Hassan, M.N.; Nosheen, A.; Naz, R.; Sajjad, M.; Ilyas, N.; Akhtar, M.N. Co-application of bio-fertilizer and salicylic acid improves growth, photosynthetic pigments and stress tolerance in wheat under drought stress. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Matin, M.A.; Fardus, J.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Hossain, M.S.; Parvin, K. Foliar application of salicylic acid improves growth and yield attributes by upregulating the antioxidant defense system in Brassica campestris plants grown in lead-amended soils. Acta Agrobot. 2019, 72, 1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hafez, E.M.; Kheir, A.; Badawy, S.A.; Rashwan, E.; Farig, M.; Osman, H.S. Differences in physiological and biochemical attributes of wheat in response to single and combined salicylic acid and biochar subjected to limited water irrigation in saline sodic soil. Plants 2020, 9, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kang, G.; Li, G.; Xu, W.; Peng, X.; Han, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Proteomics reveals the effects of salicylic acid on growth and tolerance to subsequent drought stress in wheat. J. Proteome Res. 2012, 11, 6066–6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Agami, R.A.; Alamri, S.A.; Abd El-Mageed, T.; Abousekken, M. Salicylic acid and proline enhance water use efficiency, antioxidant defense system and tissues’ anatomy of wheat plants under field deficit irrigation stress. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2019, 92, 360–370. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yavas, I.; Unay, A. Effects of zinc and salicylic acid on wheat under drought stress. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2016, 26, 1012–1101. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alotaibi, M.; El-Hendawy, S.; Mohammed, N.; Alsamin, B.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; Refay, Y. Effects of salicylic acid and macro-and micronutrients through foliar and soil applications on the agronomic performance, physiological attributes, and water productivity of wheat under normal and limited irrigation in dry climatic conditions. Plants 2023, 12, 2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Safar-Noori, M.; Assaha, D.V.M.; Saneoka, H. Effect of salicylic acid and potassium application on yield and grain nutritional quality of wheat under drought stress condition. Cereal Res. Commun. 2018, 46, 558–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dodig, D.; Zorić, M.; Jović, M.; Kandić, V.; Stanisavljević, R.; Šurlan-Momirović, G. Wheat seedlings growth response to water deficiency and how it correlates with adult plant tolerance to drought. JAS 2014, 153, 466–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Poudel, M.R.; Ghimire, S.; Pandey, M.P.; Dhakal, K.H.; Thapa, D.B.; Poudel, H.K. Evaluation of wheat genotypes under irrigated, heat stress and drought conditions. J. Biol. Today’s World 2020, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  40. Prasad, P.; Pisipati, S.; Momčilović, I.; Ristic, Z. Independent and combined effects of high temperature and drought stress during grain filling on plant yield and chloroplast EF-Tu expression in spring wheat. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2011, 197, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Maccaferri, M.; Sanguineti, M.C.; Demontis, A.; El-Ahmed, A.; Garcia del Moral, L.; Maalouf, F.; Nachit, M.; Nserallah, N.; Ouabbou, H.; Rhouma, S. Association mapping in durum wheat grown across a broad range of water regimes. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 409–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, M.A.; Waseem Akram, M.; Iqbal, M.; Ghulam Muhu-Din Ahmed, H.; Rehman, A.; Arslan Iqbal, H.S.M.; Alam, B. Multivariate and association analyses of quantitative attributes reveal drought tolerance potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2023, 54, 178–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ning, D.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Qin, A.; Huang, C.; Fu, Y.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. The effects of foliar supplementation of silicon on physiological and biochemical responses of winter wheat to drought stress during different growth stages. Plants 2023, 12, 2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gong, H.J.; Chen, K.M.; Zhao, Z.G.; Chen, G.C.; Zhou, W.J. Effects of silicon on defense of wheat against oxidative stress under drought at different developmental stages. Biologia. Plant. 2008, 52, 592–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karim, M.R.; Rahman, M.A. Drought risk management for increased cereal production in Asian Least Developed Countries. Weather. Clim. Extremes 2015, 7, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abdel-Motagally, F.M.F.; El-Zohri, M. Improvement of wheat yield grown under drought stress by boron foliar application at different growth stages. J. Saudi Soci. Agic. Sci. 2018, 17, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, M.B.; Muhammad Farooq, M.F.; Mubshar Hussain, M.H.; Shahnawaz, S.; Ghulam Shabir, G.S. Foliar application of micronutrients improves the wheat yield and net economic return. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2010, 12, 953–956. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kulkarni, M.; Soolanayakanahally, R.; Ogawa, S.; Uga, Y.; Selvaraj, M.G.; Kagale, S. Drought response in wheat: Key genes and regulatory mechanisms controlling root system architecture and transpiration efficiency. Front. Chem. 2017, 5, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Karim, M.R.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Zhao, R.R.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, F.S.; Zou, C.Q. Alleviation of drought stress in winter wheat by late foliar application of zinc, boron, and manganese. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bagci, S.; Ekiz, H.; Yilmaz, A.; Cakmak, I. Effects of zinc deficiency and drought on grain yield of field-grown wheat cultivars in Central Anatolia. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2007, 193, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ullah, A.; Farooq, M.; Rehman, A.; Arshad, M.S.; Shoukat, H.; Nadeem, A.; Nawaz, A.; Wakeel, A.; Nadeem, F. Manganese nutrition improves the productivity and grain biofortification of bread wheat in alkaline calcareous soil. Exp. Agric. 2018, 54, 744–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Akhtar, N.; Ilyas, N.; Arshad, M.; Meraj, T.A.; Hefft, D.I.; Jan, B.L.; Ahmad, P. The impact of calcium, potassium, and boron application on the growth and yield characteristics of durum wheat under drought conditions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dutta, T.; Neelapu, N.R.; Wani, S.H.; Challa, S. Compatible solute engineering of crop plants for improved tolerance toward abiotic stresses. In Biochemical, Physiological and Molecular Avenues for Combating Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 221–254. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ghosh, U.K.; Islam, M.N.; Siddiqui, M.N.; Khan, M.A.R. Understanding the roles of osmolytes for acclimatizing plants to changing environment: A review of potential mechanism. Plant Signal. Behav. 2021, 16, 1913306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khan, M.I.; Poor, P.; Janda, T. Salicylic Acid: A versatile signaling molecule in plants. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 41, 1887–1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Torun, H.; Novák, O.; Mikulík, J.; Pěnčík, A.; Strnad, M.; Ayaz, F.A. Timing-dependent effects of salicylic acid treatment on phytohormonal changes, ROS regulation, and antioxidant defense in salinized barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mohammed, N.; El-Hendawy, S.; Alsamin, B.; Mubushar, M.; Dewir, Y.H. Integrating application methods and concentrations of salicylic acid as an avenue to enhance growth, production, and water use efficiency of wheat under full and deficit irrigation in arid countries. Plants 2023, 12, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.; Al-Qurainy, F.; Foolad, M.R. Drought tolerance: Roles of organic osmolytes, growth regulators, and mineral nutrients. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 111, pp. 249–296. [Google Scholar]
  59. Alotaibi, M.; El-Hendawy, S.; Mohammed, N.; Alsamin, B.; Refay, Y. Appropriate application methods for salicylic acid and plant nutrients combinations to promote morpho-physiological traits, production, and water use efficiency of wheat under normal and deficit irrigation in an arid climate. Plants 2023, 12, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Sarto, M.V.M.; Sarto, J.R.W.; Rampim, L.; Bassegio, D.; da Costa, P.F.; Inagaki, A.M. Wheat phenology and yield under drought: A review. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 11, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ding, J.; Huang, Z.; Zhu, M.; Li, C.; Zhu, X.; Guo, W. Does cyclic water stress damage wheat yield more than a single stress? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Khadka, K.; Earl, H.J.; Raizada, M.N.; Navabi, A. A Physio-morphological trait-based approach for breeding drought tolerant wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Panhwar, N.A.; Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Baloch, G.M.; Soomro, Z.A.; Sial, M.A.; Demiraj, E.; Panhwar, S.A.; Afzal, A.; Lahori, A.H. Water stress affects the some morpho-physiological traits of twenty wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes under field condition. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Frantová, N.; Rábek, M.; Elzner, P.; Stˇreda, T.; Jovanović, I.; Holková, L.; Martinek, P.; Smutná, P.; Prášil, I.T. Different drought tolerance strategy of wheat varieties in spike architecture. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fang, Y.; Du, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, A.; Qiao, S.; Xu, B.; Zhang, S.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Chen, Y. Moderate drought stress affected root growth and grain yield in old, modern and newly released cultivars of winter wheat. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, L.; He, X.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zou, C.; Chen, X. Tiller development affected by nitrogen fertilisation in a high-yielding wheat productive system. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 1034–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abid, M.; Ali, S.; Qi, L.K.; Zahoor, R.; Tian, Z.; Jiang, D.; Snider, J.L.; Dai, T. Physiological and biochemical changes during drought and recovery periods at tillering and jointing stages in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Slafer, G.; Araus, J.; Richards, R. Physiological traits that increase the yield potential of wheat. In Wheat: Ecology and Physiology of Yield Determination; Satorre, E.H., Slafer, G.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; pp. 379–415. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lizana, X.; Calderini, D. Yield and grain quality of wheat in response to increased temperatures at key periods for grain number and grain weight determination: Considerations for the climatic change scenarios of Chile. JAS 2013, 151, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Monteleone, B.; Borzí, I.; Arosio, M.; Cesarini, L.; Bonaccorso, B.; Martina, M. Modelling the response of wheat yield to stage-specific water stress in the Po Plain. Agric. Water Manage. 2023, 287, 108444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kareem, F.; Rihan, H.; Fuller, M.P. The effect of exogenous applications of salicylic acid on drought tolerance and up-regulation of the drought response regulon of Iraqi wheat. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 22, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hera, M.H.R.; Hossain, M.; Paul, A.K. Effect of foliar zinc spray on growth and yield of heat tolerant wheat under water stress. Int. J. Biol. Environ. Eng. 2018, 1, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  73. Fan, Y.; Lv, Z.; Li, Y.; Qin, B.; Song, Q.; Ma, L.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, W.; Ma, S.; Ma, C. Salicylic acid reduces wheat yield loss caused by high temperature stress by enhancing the photosynthetic performance of the flag leaves. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jatana, B.S.; Ram, H.; Gupta, N.; Kaur, H. Wheat response to foliar application of salicylic acid at different sowing dates. J. Crop Improv. 2022, 36, 369–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tanin, M.J.; Sharma, A.; Ram, H.; Singh, S.; Srivastava, P.; Mavi, G.; Saini, D.K.; Gudi, S.; Kumar, P.; Goyal, P. Application of potassium nitrate and salicylic acid improves grain yield and related traits by delaying leaf senescence in Gpc-B1 carrying advanced wheat genotypes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1107705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Silviya, R.A.; Stalin, P. Rice crop response to applied copper under varying soil available copper status at tamilnadu, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1400–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chaudry, E.; Timmer, V.; Javed, A.; Siddique, M. Wheat response to micronutrients in rainfed areas of Punjab. Soil Environ. 2007, 26, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  78. Xiao-li, W.; Miao, L.; Chao-su, L.; Mchugh, A.D.J.; Ming, L.; Tao, X.; Yu-bin, L.; Yong-lu, T. Source–sink relations and responses to sink–source manipulations during grain filling in wheat. J. Integ. Agric. 2022, 21, 1593–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Klessig, D.F.; Choi, H.W.; Dempsey, D.M.A. Systemic acquired resistance and salicylic acid: Past, present, and future. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 2018, 31, 871–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Saheri, F.; Barzin, G.; Pishkar, L.; Boojar, M.M.A.; Babaeekhou, L. Foliar spray of salicylic acid induces physiological and biochemical changes in purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) under drought stress. Biologia 2020, 75, 2189–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zafar, Z.; Rasheed, F.; Atif, R.M.; Javed, M.A.; Maqsood, M.; Gailing, O. Foliar application of salicylic acid improves water stress tolerance in Conocarpus erectus L. and Populus deltoides L. saplings: Evidence from morphological, physiological, and biochemical changes. Plants 2021, 10, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Bakry, B.; El-Hariri, D.; Sadak, M.; El-Bassiouny, H. Drought stress mitigation by foliar application of salicylic acid in two linseed varieties grown under newly reclaimed sandy soil. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 8, 3503–3514. [Google Scholar]
  83. Jini, D.; Joseph, B. Physiological mechanism of salicylic acid for alleviation of salt stress in rice. Rice Sci. 2017, 24, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hafez, E.M. Influence of salicylic acid on ion distribution, enzymatic activity and some agromorphological characteristics of wheat under salt-affected soil. Egypt. J. Agron. 2016, 38, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dass, A.; Rajanna, G.A.; Babu, S.; Lal, S.K.; Choudhary, A.K.; Singh, R.; Rathore, S.S.; Kaur, R.; Dhar, S.; Singh, T. Foliar application of macro-and micronutrients improves the productivity, economic returns, and resource-use efficiency of soybean in a semiarid climate. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chakmak, I. Possible roles of zinc in protecting plant cells from damage by reactive oxygen. New Phytol. 2000, 146, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pavia, I.; Roque, J.; Rocha, L.; Ferreira, H.; Castro, C.; Carvalho, A.; Silva, E.; Brito, C.; Goncalves, A.; Lima-Brito, J. Zinc priming and foliar application enhances photoprotection mechanisms in drought-stressed wheat plants during anthesis. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 140, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Amanullah; Ilyas, M.; Nabi, H.; Khalid, S.; Ahmad, M.; Muhammad, A.; Ullah, S.; Ali, I.; Fahad, S.; Adnan, M. Integrated foliar nutrients application improve wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity under calcareous soils in drylands. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2021, 52, 2748–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ali, L.G.; Nulit, R.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Yien, C.Y.S. Efficacy of KNO3, SiO2 and SA priming for improving emergence, seedling growth and antioxidant enzymes of rice (Oryza sativa), under drought. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, J.-Y.; Xiong, Y.-C.; Li, F.-M.; Siddique, K.H.; Turner, N.C. Effects of drought stress on morphophysiological traits, biochemical characteristics, yield, and yield components in different ploidy wheat: A meta-analysis. Adv. Agron. 2017, 143, 139–173. [Google Scholar]
  91. Prasertsak, A.; Fukai, S. Nitrogen availability and water stress interaction on rice growth and yield. Field Crops Res. 1997, 52, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aksu, G.; Altay, H. The effects of potassium applications on drought stress in sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2020, 22, 1092–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sohail, M.A.; Nawaz, F.; Aziz, M.; Ahmad, W. Effect of supplemental potassium and chitosan on growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) under drought stress. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 3, 56–71. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ibrahim, M.F.; Abd El-Samad, G.; Ashour, H.; El-Sawy, A.M.; Hikal, M.; Elkelish, A.; El-Gawad, H.A.; El-Yazied, A.A.; Hozzein, W.N.; Farag, R. Regulation of agronomic traits, nutrient uptake, osmolytes and antioxidants of maize as influenced by exogenous potassium silicate under deficit irrigation and semiarid conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; 300p. [Google Scholar]
  96. Arnon, D.I. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 1949, 24, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lichtenthaler, H.K. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol. 1987, 148, 350–382. [Google Scholar]
Plants 13 01490 g001
Figure 1. The combined effect of the application timing and the foliar application of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different growth parameters over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Figure 1. The combined effect of the application timing and the foliar application of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different growth parameters over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Plants 13 01490 g001
Plants 13 01490 g002
Figure 2. Interactive effect of application timing (AT) and foliar treatments of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different physiological parameters over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars sharing the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Figure 2. Interactive effect of application timing (AT) and foliar treatments of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different physiological parameters over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars sharing the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Plants 13 01490 g002
Plants 13 01490 g003
Figure 3. The interactive effect of application timing and the foliar treatment of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different yield, yield components, and irrigation water use efficiency over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars sharing the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Figure 3. The interactive effect of application timing and the foliar treatment of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) on different yield, yield components, and irrigation water use efficiency over two growing seasons. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). Bars sharing the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level based on Tukey’s test.
Plants 13 01490 g003
Plants 13 01490 g004
Figure 4. The heatmap of the different studied parameters of wheat and the various of application timing (AT) and foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) under limited irrigation. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. PH, plant height (cm plant−1); TN, tiller number per plant; GLN, green leaf number per plant; GLA, green leaf area (cm2 plant−1); SFW, shoot fresh weight (g plant−1); SDW, shoot dry weight (g plant−1); RWC, relative water content (%); Chlt, total chlorophyll content (mg g−1 fresh weight), SL, spike length (cm); GNPS, grain number per spike; GWS, grain weight per spike (g); TGW, thousand-grain weight (g); GY, grain yield (ton ha−1); BY, biological yield (ton ha−1); HI, harvest index (%); IWUE, irrigation water use efficiency (kg mm−1 ha−1). The numbers 1 and 2 indicate traits measured at 95 and 115 days from sowing, respectively.
Figure 4. The heatmap of the different studied parameters of wheat and the various of application timing (AT) and foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) under limited irrigation. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. PH, plant height (cm plant−1); TN, tiller number per plant; GLN, green leaf number per plant; GLA, green leaf area (cm2 plant−1); SFW, shoot fresh weight (g plant−1); SDW, shoot dry weight (g plant−1); RWC, relative water content (%); Chlt, total chlorophyll content (mg g−1 fresh weight), SL, spike length (cm); GNPS, grain number per spike; GWS, grain weight per spike (g); TGW, thousand-grain weight (g); GY, grain yield (ton ha−1); BY, biological yield (ton ha−1); HI, harvest index (%); IWUE, irrigation water use efficiency (kg mm−1 ha−1). The numbers 1 and 2 indicate traits measured at 95 and 115 days from sowing, respectively.
Plants 13 01490 g004
Plants 13 01490 g005
Figure 5. Different meteorological data of the experimental site over two wheat growing seasons.
Figure 5. Different meteorological data of the experimental site over two wheat growing seasons.
Plants 13 01490 g005
Table 1. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on different growth parameters of wheat at 95 and 115 days from sowing over two growing seasons.
Table 1. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on different growth parameters of wheat at 95 and 115 days from sowing over two growing seasons.
Studied FactorGrowth Parameters at 95 Days from SowingGrowth Parameters At 115 Days From Sowing
PHTNGLNGLASFWSDWPHTNGLNGLASFWSDW
Application timing (AT)
T64.50 ns3.28 ns7.12 b96.63 b11.93 b3.86 b67.06 ns3.36 b2.74 b38.35 b10.38 b4.74 b
T + H65.39 ns3.40 ns8.22 a111.17 a13.54 a4.58 a67.71 ns3.65 a3.25 a44.96 a11.18 a5.58 a
T + H + G65.10 ns3.50 ns8.40 a113.40 a13.45 a4.60 a68.33 ns3.67 a3.34 a45.86 a11.46 a5.84 a
Foliar treatments (F)
Control63.97 b3.26 ns7.07 b88.29 c11.43 c3.72 c65.69 b3.24 b2.56 b33.09 c9.07 c3.92 c
SA64.73 ab3.37 ns8.07 a113.54 ab13.44 ab4.57 ab68.00 a3.61 a3.36 a46.10 ab11.63 b5.91 a
SA + Mic65.70 a3.41 ns8.15 a116.41 a14.04 a4.76 a68.39 a3.67 a3.31a48.08 a12.03 a6.06 a
SA + Mic + Mac65.58 a3.54 ns8.35 a110.03 b12.97 b4.31 b68.72 a3.72 a3.22 a44.96 b11.31 b5.64 b
ANOVAdf
S10.109 ns0.421 ns0.502 ns0.336 ns0.723 ns0.053 ns0.333 ns0.185 ns0.103 ns0.601 ns0.526 ns0.063 ns
AT20.126 ns0.192 ns<0.001 ***<0.001 ***0.001 **<0.001 ***0.421 ns0.029 *<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
AT × S20.372 ns0.491 ns0.031 *0.468 ns0.582 ns0.682 ns0.692 ns0.009 **0.594 ns0.974 ns0.187 ns0.058 ns
F30.006 **0.259 ns<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.00 ***<0.001 ***0.001 **0.001 **<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
F × S30.533 ns0.644 ns0.537 ns0.150 ns0.999 ns0.704 ns0.367 ns0.775 ns0.624 ns0.870 ns0.276 ns0.119 ns
F × AT60.339 ns0.987 ns0.022 *<0.001 ***0.004 **0.010 *0.698 ns0.933 ns0.009 **<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
F × AT × S60.333 ns0.528 ns0.563 ns0.506 ns0.991 ns0.899 ns0.463 ns0.750 ns0.580 ns0.231 ns0.701 ns0.236 ns
Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). PH, plant height (cm plant−1); TN, tiller number per plant; GLN, green leaf number per plant; GLA, green leaves area (cm2 plant−1); SFW, shoot fresh weight (g plant−1), and SDW, shoot dry weight (g plant−1). T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. ns indicates non-significance while *, ** and *** indicate significance at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, in F-tests. Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different based on Tukey’s test.
Table 2. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on different physiological parameters of wheat at 95 and 115 days from sowing over two growing seasons.
Table 2. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on different physiological parameters of wheat at 95 and 115 days from sowing over two growing seasons.
Physiological Parameters at 95 Days from SowingPhysiological Parameters at 115 Days from Sowing
RWCChaChbChtRWCChaChbCht
Application timing (AT)
T67.11 b1.92 b0.79 b2.77 b57.72 b1.00 c0.44 c1.50 c
T + H75.26 a2.26 a0.93 a3.23 a62.72 a1.19 b0.51 b1.75 b
T + H + G76.50 a2.27 a0.91 a3.24 a63.85 a1.24 a0.53 a1.83 a
Foliar treatments (F)
Control64.61 b1.47 b0.71 b2.22 b50.32 b0.74 c0.32 b1.10 c
SA75.86 a2.36 a0.93 a3.34 a64.53 a1.28 ab0.56 a1.90 ab
SA + Mic76.45 a2.40 a0.94 a3.39 a66.67 a1.32 a0.57 a1.94 a
SA + Mic + Mac74.90 a2.38 a0.93 a3.35 a64.20 a1.25 b0.54 a1.84 b
ANOVAdf
S10.087 ns0.736 ns0.311 ns0.376 ns0.273 ns0.079 ns0.097 ns0.032 *
AT2<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***0.001 **<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
AT × S20.027 *0.051 ns0.811 ns0.078 ns0.373 ns0.014 *0.001 **0.005 **
F3<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
F × S3<0.001 ***<0.001 ***0.011 *<0.001 ***0.837 ns0.073 ns0.010 *0.078 ns
F × AT6<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001***<0.001 ***
F × AT × S60.160 ns0.137 ns0.614 ns0.248 ns0.794 ns0.098 ns0.104 ns0.127 ns
Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). RWC, Chla, Chlb, and Chlt indicate relative water content (%), chlorophyll a (mg g−1 FW), chlorophyll b (mg g−1 FW), and total chlorophyll content (mg g−1 FW), respectively. T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. ns, *, **, and *** indicate non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 in F-tests, respectively. Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different based on Tukey’s test.
Table 3. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on yield components, grain yield, and irrigation water use efficiency of wheat over two growing seasons.
Table 3. The analysis of variance (F-test) and mean comparisons of the effects of season (S), application timing (AT), the foliar treatments (F) of salicylic acid (SA), macronutrients (Mac), and micronutrients (Mic) and their interaction on yield components, grain yield, and irrigation water use efficiency of wheat over two growing seasons.
SLGWPSGNPSTGWGYBYHIIWUE
Application timing (AT)
T8.33 b1.05 c34.87 c30.23 b3.26 b11.08 b29.44 b9.86 b
T + H8.45 ab1.19 b36.86 b32.12 a3.74 a11.97 a31.16 a11.32 a
T + H + G8.62 a1.27 a38.90 a32.41 a3.87 a12.19 a31.65 a11.73 a
Foliar treatments (F)
Control8.33 ns0.94 d33.92 c27.96 d3.01 c10.67 b28.32 c9.14 c
SA8.44 ns1.25 b37.97 ab32.84 b3.88 a12.07 a32.06 a11.75 a
SA + Mic8.53 ns1.29 a38.37 a33.57 a4.01 a12.14 a32.98 a12.16 a
SA + Mic+ Mac8.58 ns1.19 c37.22 b31.99 c3.58 b12.09 a29.64 b10.83 b
ANOVAdf
S10.383 ns0.802 ns0.704 ns0.913 ns0.051 ns0.007 **0.306 ns0.051 ns
AT20.040 *<0.001 ***<0.001 ***0.004 **<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.003 **<0.001 ***
AT × S20.2.37 ns0.885 ns0.829 ns0.843 ns0.767 ns0.181 ns0.422 ns0.769 ns
F30.149 ns<0.001 ***<0.001***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
F × S30.489 ns0.182 ns0.589 ns0.334 ns0.216 ns0.683 ns0.118 ns0.214 ns
F × AT60.748 ns<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.001 ***<0.070 ns<0.001 ***<0.001 ***
F × AT × S60.051 ns0.982 ns0.697 ns0.731 ns0.980 ns0.985 ns0.799 ns0.980 ns
Values are the means of three replications (n = 3). SL, spike length (cm); GNPS, grain number per spike; GWS, grain weight per spike (g); TGW, thousand-grain weight (g); GY, grain yield (ton ha−1); BY, biological yield (ton ha−1); HI, harvest index (%); IWUE, irrigation water use efficiency (kg mm−1 ha−1). T, T + H, and T + H + G indicate foliar application at tillering, tillering and heading, and tillering, heading, and grain filling growth stages, respectively. ns, *, **, and *** indicate non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 in F-tests, respectively. Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different based on Tukey’s test.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

El-Hendawy, S.; Mohammed, N.; Al-Suhaibani, N. Enhancing Wheat Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency under Deficit Irrigation by Integrating Foliar Application of Salicylic Acid and Nutrients at Critical Growth Stages. Plants 2024, 13, 1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111490

AMA Style

El-Hendawy S, Mohammed N, Al-Suhaibani N. Enhancing Wheat Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency under Deficit Irrigation by Integrating Foliar Application of Salicylic Acid and Nutrients at Critical Growth Stages. Plants. 2024; 13(11):1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111490

Chicago/Turabian Style

El-Hendawy, Salah, Nabil Mohammed, and Nasser Al-Suhaibani. 2024. "Enhancing Wheat Growth, Physiology, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency under Deficit Irrigation by Integrating Foliar Application of Salicylic Acid and Nutrients at Critical Growth Stages" Plants 13, no. 11: 1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111490

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop