Submitted:
16 April 2026
Posted:
16 April 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials and Seed Viability
2.2. AMF Inoculum Production and Salinity Treatments
2.3. Experimental Design and Growth Conditions
2.4. Data Collection and Growth Measurements
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Establishment Under Salt Stress
3.1.1. Overall Colonization and Structural Development
3.1.2. Dynamics of Intraradical Fungal Structures
3.2. Rhizospheric Spore Abundance: Fungal Reproductive Response
3.3. Plant Growth and Physiological Responses to AMF and Salinity
3.3.1. Vegetative Growth: Plant Height and Leaf Production
3.3.2. Relative Growth Rate (RGR): A Measure of Growth Efficiency
3.4. Biomass Accumulation and Allocation
3.4.1. Fresh and Dry Weight of Shoot and Root
3.4.2. The Critical Role of the Root-to-Shoot (R:S) Ratio
3.5. Interspecific Comparison and Salinity Tolerance Index
3.6. Summary of Statistical Interactions
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- For Sustainable Agriculture: Inoculation with AMF should be integrated into the cultivation of salt-tolerant crops like sorghum in salinity-affected regions. This biological approach can reduce the reliance on chemical amendments and improve water-use efficiency.
- For Soil Management: The use of AMF-inoculated, high-biomass plants like S. bicolor can be a part of strategies for the phytomanagement of saline soils, contributing to soil carbon sequestration and ecological restoration.
- For Future Research: Field trials are essential to validate these greenhouse findings. Furthermore, research should focus on screening and formulating native AMF consortia that are specifically adapted to local saline conditions and are compatible with key crop species to maximize resilience and yield.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AMF | Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi |
| ROS | Reactive Oxygen Species |
| EC | Electrical Conductivity (e.g., 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 dS m⁻¹) |
| CRD | Completely Randomized Design |
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
| LSD | Least Significant Difference |
| RGR | Relative Growth Rate |
| R:S ratio / RSR | Root-to-Shoot Ratio |
| STI | Salinity Tolerance Index |
| Mp | Poor Mycelium |
| Mm | Medium Mycelium |
| Ma | Abundant Mycelium |
| Vp | Poor Vesicles |
| Vm | Medium Vesicles |
| Va | Abundant Vesicles |
| Ap | Poor Arbuscules |
| Am | Medium Arbuscules |
| Aa | Abundant Arbuscules |
| Sb | Sorghum bicolor |
| Ss | Sesbania sesban |
| Ct | Cassia tora |
| Na⁺ | Sodium ion |
| Cl⁻ | Chloride ion |
| K⁺/Na⁺ | Potassium-to-Sodium ratio (ionic homeostasis indicator) |
| STAR | Statistical Tool for Agricultural Research |
References
- Hagage, M.; Abdulaziz, A. M.; Elbeih, S. F.; Hewaidy, A. G. A. Monitoring soil salinization and waterlogging in the northeastern Nile Delta linked to shallow saline groundwater and irrigation water quality. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 27838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivushkin, K.; Bartholomeus, H.; Bregt, A. K.; Pulatov, A.; Kempen, B.; De Sousa, L. Global mapping of soil salinity change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 231, 111260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarolli, P.; Luo, J.; Park, E.; Barcaccia, G.; Masin, R. Soil salinization in agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation strategies combining nature-based solutions and bioengineering. iScience 2024, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Majeed, A.; Muhammad, Z. Salinity: A major agricultural problem-Causes, impacts on crop productivity and management strategies. In Soil Health Restoration and Management; Springer, 2019; pp. 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramaniam, T.; Shen, G.; Esmaeili, N.; Zhang, Y. Plants’ response mechanisms to salinity stress. Plants 2023, 12, 2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Egamberdieva, D.; Wirth, S.; Jabborova, D.; Räsänen, L. A.; Liao, H. Coordination between Bradyrhizobium and Pseudomonas alleviates salt stress in soybean through altering root system architecture. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaman, K. P. Physiological stress in agricultural crops: An overview. Biol. Forum 2021, 13, 277–292. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, Y.; Boiti, A.; Vallone, D.; Foulkes, N. S. Reactive oxygen species signaling and oxidative stress: Transcriptional regulation and evolution. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Tang, M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis alleviates salt stress in black locust through improved photosynthesis, water status, and K+/Na+ homeostasis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atta, K.; Mondal, S.; Gorai, S.; Singh, A. P.; Kumari, A.; Ghosh, T.; Jespersen, D. Impacts of salinity stress on crop plants: Improving salt tolerance through genetic and molecular dissection. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1241736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Himabindu, Y.; Chakradhar, T.; Reddy, M. C.; Kanygin, A.; Redding, K. E.; Chandrasekhar, T. Salt-tolerant genes from halophytes are potential key players of salt tolerance in glycophytes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2016, 124, 39–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bortolot, M.; Buffoni, B.; Mazzarino, S.; Hoff, G.; Martino, E.; Fiorilli, V.; Salvioli Di Fossalunga, A. The importance of mycorrhizal fungi and their associated bacteria in promoting crops’ performance: An applicative perspective. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammed, G. J.; Hajiboland, R. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and higher plants: Fundamentals and applications; Springer Nature, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Boorboori, M. R.; Lackóová, L. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and salinity stress mitigation in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 15, 1504970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, C.; Lu, T.; Zheng, Y. Cooperation between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and earthworms promotes the physiological adaptation of maize under a high salt stress. Plant Soil 2018, 423, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nawaz, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Asadullah; Imran, A.; Marghoob, M. U.; Imtiaz, M.; Mubeen, F. Potential of salt tolerant PGPR in growth and yield augmentation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under saline conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liang, S. M.; Li, Q. S.; Liu, M. Y.; Hashem, A.; Al-Arjani, A. B. F.; Alenazi, M. M.; Wu, Q. S. Mycorrhizal effects on growth and expressions of stress-responsive genes (aquaporins and SOSs) of tomato under salt stress. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.; Islam, M.; Hasan, M.; Hafeez, A. S. M. G.; Chowdhury, M.; Pramanik, M.; El Sabagh, A. Salinity stress in maize: Consequences, tolerance mechanisms, and management strategies. OBM Genet. 2024, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estrada, B.; Aroca, R.; Azcón-Aguilar, C.; Barea, J. M.; Ruiz-Lozano, J. M. Importance of native arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation in the halophyte Asteriscus maritimus for successful establishment and growth under saline conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 370, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Dai, Z.; Cui, M.; Lu, W.; Sun, H. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alleviate boron toxicity in Puccinellia tenuiflora under the combined stresses of salt and drought. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 240, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fayuan, W.; Cheng, P.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, S.; Sun, Y. Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and soil amendments to remediation of a heavy metal-contaminated soil using sweet sorghum. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 844–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakabouki, I.; Stavropoulos, P.; Roussis, I.; Mavroeidis, A.; Bilalis, D. The influence of salinity and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on the growth and yield performances of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). Agronomy 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahab, A.; Muhammad, M.; Munir, A.; Abdi, G.; Zaman, W.; Ayaz, A.; Reddy, S. P. P. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in regulating growth, enhancing productivity, and potentially influencing ecosystems under abiotic and biotic stresses. Plants 2023, 12, 3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, J.; Peng, F.; Xue, X.; You, Q.; Zhang, W.; Wang, T.; Huang, C. The growth promotion of two salt-tolerant plant groups with PGPR inoculation: A meta-analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandrasekaran, M.; Kim, K.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Walitang, D.; Sundaram, S.; Joe, M. M.; Selvakumar, G.; Hu, S.; Oh, S. H.; Sa, T. Mycorrhizal symbiotic efficiency on C3 and C4 plants under salinity stress-A meta-analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragon, B. V.; Cardinale, M.; Rolli, E.; Rustioni, L.; Francioli, D. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in abiotic stress management in viticulture under climatic shifts. Plant Stress 2025, 11, 100863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Qin, Z.; Wang, J.; Xu, S.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, X.; Huang, Z. Salinity changes root occupancy by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species. Pedobiologia 2020, 81, 150665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinsukon, C.; Lumyong, S.; Kuyper, T. W.; Boonlue, S. Colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improves salinity tolerance of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) seedlings. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evelin, H.; Devi, T. S.; Gupta, S.; Kapoor, R. Mitigation of salinity stress in plants by arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: Current understanding and new challenges. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Chen, C.; Wang, G. Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improves plant biomass and nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients: a meta-analysis. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornejo, P.; Seguel, A.; Aguilera, P.; Meier, S.; Larsen, J.; Borie, F. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve tolerance of agricultural plants to cope abiotic stress conditions. In Plant-Microbe Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives; Singh, D., Ed.; Springer, 2017; pp. 55–80. [Google Scholar]
- Lehmann, A.; Rillig, M. C. Arbuscular mycorrhizal contribution to copper, manganese and iron nutrient concentrations in crops-A meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 81, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertump, M.; Dobo, B.; Mikru, A. Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Inoculation on Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Soybean (Glycine max) Grown Under Different Salinity Levels. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res. 2019, 8, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, W.; Liu, Q.; Wang, B.; Zhang, N.; Qiu, R.; Yuan, Y.; Cui, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi communities and promoting the growth of alfalfa in saline ecosystems of northern China. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1438771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sagar, A.; Rathore, P.; Ramteke, P. W.; Ramakrishna, W.; Reddy, M. S.; Pecoraro, L. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and their synergistic interactions to counteract the negative effects of saline soil on agriculture: Key macromolecules and mechanisms. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]




| Species | SaltsdSm1 |
Mycelium % | Vesicles % | Arbuscular % | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mp | Mm | Ma | Vp | Vm | Va | Ap | Am | Aa | ||
| Ss | Non | 10.3 | 11.3 | 16.2 | 14.3 | 14.5 | 20.5 | 10.4 | 13.1 | 14.7 |
| 2.5 | 35.2 | 42.5 | 75.0** | 24.2 | 28.7 | 52.8* | 18.8 | 19.3 | 29.5* | |
| 5.0 | 14.5 | 24.7 | 27.3 | 18.7 | 21.4 | 24.7 | 15.5 | 16.0 | 22.2 | |
| 7.5 | 10.0 | 12.1 | 14.4 | 17.2 | 17.8 | 20.4 | 7.10 | 8.2 | 10.1 | |
| Ct | Non | 17.0 | 19.3 | 19.8 | 17.3 | 22.4 | 31.4 | 17.3 | 17.7 | 20.6 |
| 2.5 | 23.4 | 44.9* | 53.3* | 40.4* | 43.4* | 46.4* | 18.8 | 19.2 | 26.3 | |
| 5.0 | 17.3 | 20.3 | 23.4 | 23.4 | 25.4 | 32.1 | 12.1 | 14.1 | 20.7 | |
| 7.5 | 5.50 | 5.70 | 8.10 | 6.70 | 9.30 | 11.1 | 6.50 | 7.00 | 7.00 | |
| Sb | Non | 14.3 | 16.6 | 17.3 | 18.4 | 22.3 | 28.2 | 11.4 | 12.3 | 15.3 |
| 2.5 | 22.3 | 40.2* | 54.7** | 37.2 | 37.5* | 48.6* | 18.7 | 22.6 | 30.2* | |
| 5.0 | 12.8 | 14.3 | 47.0* | 18.7 | 21.2 | 21.8 | 12.2 | 13.2 | 29.5* | |
| 7.5 | 11.0 | 14.3 | 16.1 | 12.2 | 13.5 | 16.8 | 10.2 | 11.1 | 17.3 | |
| LSD under 0.05 | Mycelium= 1.23 | Vesicle= 2.12 | Arbuscular=1.01 | |||||||
| Plant Species | Abundant Mycelium (Ma) | Medium Mycelium (Mm) | Abundant Vesicles (Va) | Medium Vesicles (Vm) | Poor Vesicles (Vp) | Abundant Arbuscules (Aa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sesbania sesban (Ss) | Yes (p<0.01) | No | Yes (p<0.05) | No | No | Yes (p<0.05) |
| Cassia tora (Ct) | Yes (p<0.05) | No | Yes (p<0.05) | Yes (p<0.05) | Yes (p<0.05) | No |
| Sorghum bicolor (Sb) | Yes (p<0.01) | Yes (p<0.05) | Yes (p<0.05) | Yes (p<0.05) | No | Yes (p<0.05) |
| Plant Species | Inoculation Status | Salinity Level (dS m-1) | Spore Abundance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sesbania sesban | Non-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 37 |
| 2.5 | 38 | ||
| 5.0 | 53 | ||
| 7.5 | 36 | ||
| AMF-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 110 | |
| 2.5 | 200 | ||
| 5.0 | 120 | ||
| 7.5 | 39 | ||
| Sorghum bicolor | Non-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 40 |
| 2.5 | 62 | ||
| 5.0 | 56 | ||
| 7.5 | 35 | ||
| AMF-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 83 | |
| 2.5 | 190 | ||
| 5.0 | 160 | ||
| 7.5 | 50 | ||
| Cassia tora | Non-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 55 |
| 2.5 | 70 | ||
| 5.0 | 65 | ||
| 7.5 | 35 | ||
| AMF-Inoculated | 0.0 (Control) | 43 | |
| 2.5 | 85 | ||
| 5.0 | 65 | ||
| 7.5 | 38 |
| Species | Treatment (Inoculation × Salinity) | Plant Height (cm) | Leaf Number | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | 4 months | 3 months | 4 months | ||
| Sesbania sesban | AMF × Non | 21.3 bc | 28.3bc | 19.0 bc | 25.0 b |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 45.5 a | 65.0 a | 25.0 a | 32.0 a | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 25.0 ab | 26.5 bc | 21.0 ab | 26.0 b | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 17.0 bce | 19.2 c | 12.0 bce | 16.0 c | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 19.0 bcde | 22.0 bc | 18.0 bcde | 22.0 bc | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 17.0 bcd | 19.2 c | 13.0 cdef | 15.0 c | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 12.0 cdef | 14.5 cd | 8.00 cdef | 12.0 cd | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 12.0 cdef | 14.1 d | 6.00 defg | 8.00 d | |
| Cassia tora | AMF × Non | 20.4 bc | 25.0 ab | 20.0 bc | 25.0 b |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 40.5 a | 50.3 a | 25.0 a | 31.0 a | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 22.6 b | 30.4 bc | 16.0 b | 22.0 bc | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 16.3 cde | 18.6 cd | 12.0 cdef | 16.0 c | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 17.6 bcd | 19.2 c | 14.0 bcd | 18.0 abc | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 17.2 bcd | 18.6 cd | 12.0 cdef | 18.0 abc | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 11.5 cdef | 13.2 ef | 7.00 cdef | 9.00 cde | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 8.00 def | 9.5 f | 6.00 defg | 8.00 d | |
| Sorghum bicolor | AMF × Non | 30.0 bc | 40.0 bc | 22.0 ab | 28.0 bc |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 45.5 a | 55.2 a | 30.0 a | 35.0 a | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 25.0 ab | 30.0 c | 25.0 b | 30.0 b | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 26.5 c | 33.0 ab | 18.0 bcde | 23.0 bc | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 25.4 ab | 28.0 abc | 16.0 b | 20.0 abc | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 34.0 b | 38.6 b | 16.0 b | 20.0 abc | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 25.7 abc | 30.6 bc | 10.0 abc | 12.0 cd | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 23.4 cde | 26.2 bc | 10.0 abc | 12.0 cd | |
| LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 3.11 | 4.12 | 1.16 | 2.13 | |
| Species | Treatment (Inoculation × Salinity) | Shoot Fresh Wt. (%) | Root Fresh Wt. (%) | Shoot Dry Wt. (%) | Root Dry Wt. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sesbania sesban | AMF × Non | 28.0 e-I | 19 bcd | 13cdef | 9bcde |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 35.0 e-h | 22 abc | 19bcd | 14abc | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 20.0 ghi | 10efgh | 10 def | 12abc | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 10.0 i | 6 i | 4 g | 2 h | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 26.0 f-i | 13 def | 14cdef | 7cde | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 18.0 ghi | 12defg | 9def | 6 def | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 18.0 ghi | 10efgh | 8defg | 4g | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 14.0 hi | 9gh | 6efg | 4g | |
| Cassia tora | AMF × Non | 29.0 e-I | 16cde | 19bcd | 11bcd |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 24.0 ghi | 14 def | 13cdef | 7 cde | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 48.0 cdef | 22abc | 29abc | 11bcd | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 48.0 c-f | 21abc | 28abc | 10bcd | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 25.0 f-i | 15cde | 12cdef | 8 cde | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 33.0 e-i | 18bcd | 18bcde | 10bcd | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 20ghi | 10efgh | 9def | 6 def | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 40d-g | 19bcd | 22bcd | 10bcd | |
| Sorghum bicolor | AMF × Non | 63bcd | 32 bc | 34 ab | 16ab |
| AMF × 2.5 dS m-1 | 92a | 53a | 42a | 27a | |
| AMF × 5.0 dS m-1 | 17ghi | 9gh | 8defg | 5defg | |
| AMF × 7.5 dS m-1 | 75ab | 33ab | 37b | 18ab | |
| Non-Inoc. × Non | 31efghi | 17bcd | 19bcd | 9 bcde | |
| Non-Inoc. × 2.5 dS m-1 | 72abc | 34b | 32bc | 18b | |
| Non-Inoc. × 5.0 dS m-1 | 30 efghi | 14def | 17cde | 7cde | |
| Non-Inoc. × 7.5 dS m-1 | 50cde | 22abc | 26abc | 12abc | |
| LSD (p ≤ 0.05) | 0.23 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Response Variable | Plant Species (S) | Salinity (L) | Inoculation (I) | S × L | S × I | L × I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colonization (%) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.001 |
| Spore Abundance | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.01 | < 0.05 | < 0.001 |
| Plant Height | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Leaf Number | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Relative Growth Rate | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 |
| Shoot Dry Weight | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Root Dry Weight | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| Root:Shoot Ratio | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).