Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Drivers of Remote Sensing Ecological Index of Aksu Oasis from the Perspective of Spatial Differentiation
Previous Article in Journal
Simultaneous Removal of Metal Ions from Wastewater by a Greener Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/w14244050
water-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

Cross-Priming Approach Induced Beneficial Metabolic Adjustments and Repair Processes during Subsequent Drought in Olive

by
Mariem Ben Abdallah
1,
Kawther Methenni
1,
Wael Taamalli
1,2,
Kamel Hessini
3,* and
Nabil Ben Youssef
1
1
Laboratory of Olive Biotechnology, Centre of Biotechnology of Borj-Cedria, University of Tunis El Manar, P.B. 901, Hammam-Lif 2050, Tunisia
2
Department of Biology, Higher Institute of Biotechnology of Beja, University of Jendouba, B.P. 382, Beja 9000, Tunisia
3
Department of Biology, College of Sciences, Taif University, P.B. 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(24), 4050; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244050
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 12 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Water and Climate Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cross-tolerance to abiotic stresses is a typical phenomenon in plants which occurs when exposure to one form of stress confers tolerance to a variety of stresses. Our study aims at investigating whether salinity priming could induce, after a recovery period (2 months), drought tolerance in olive cv. Chétoui. Here, our results revealed that this method of cross-adaptation had further enhanced the olive’s subsequent response to drought. In fact, relative to the non-pretreated plants, the salt-pretreated ones displayed an enhancement in terms of shoot biomass accumulation, photosynthetic performance, water-use efficiency, and hydration status. Furthermore, the attenuation of oxidative stress and the maintenance of structural lipid contents, as well as their fatty acid composition in salt-pretreated plants, also supported the beneficial effect of this method. From our results, it seems that salt priming substantially modulated the physiological and biochemical responses of olive plants to subsequent drought. Accordingly, metabolite adjustments (soluble sugars and proline), the enzymatic antioxidant system (superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and guaiacol peroxidase (GP) activities) as well as the nonenzymatic one (phenols), and the increase in leaf density together with the raise of structural lipids content, to a lesser extent, seemed to perform a major role in the development of this improved tolerance to drought. The ameliorative response found in salt-primed olive plants, when subsequently exposed to drought, indicates an efficient cross-tolerance reaction. This could be particularly important in the Mediterranean area, where olive orchards are mainly cultivated under dry-land farming management.

1. Introduction

Due to elevated global climate change, drought is the greatest environmental challenge facing the Earth today. In agriculture, this climatic/environmental stress hampered crop growth, development, and crop productivity [1,2], especially in Mediterranean basin, an area where olive trees were mainly cultivated under rain-fed conditions [3]. In such a region, the cultivation of this tree knows several problems related to various environmental stressors, characterized by long drought periods and soil salinization. This problem will be further aggravated in the long term with the risks of continuous climate change [4,5]. Drought affected olive plants by impairing the CO2 availability and consequently altered their photosynthetic metabolism. Moreover, it could damage the cell membrane function and alter the redox equilibrium, expressed as oxidative stress, leading to the inhibition of plant growth [6]. In spite of the capacity of olive to overcome water shortage, it is well-documented that dry conditions greatly influence its productive performance. Indeed, under such climatic conditions, extensive research showed that olive growth, flowering, fruit size, yield, and notably oil quality could be altered [5,7,8,9,10,11]. Because of the socioeconomic importance of olive in Tunisia and its enhanced cultivation even on drought-affected regions, there is an emergency need for further improvement in its drought tolerance.
Presently, priming, the stimulation of plant defense through prior exposure to an eliciting factor (chemical agents, stress), could develop the so-called “plant stress memory” and improve the plant capacity to survive from later stress events [2,12]. Among priming strategies, cross-priming, also referred to as cross-tolerance, cross-adaptation, cross-resistance, or cross- protection [13], is the process which occurs when exposure to one form of stress confers tolerance to a range of stresses [14,15,16]. It is well established that abiotic stresses exhibited, generally, many similarities in their effects and plant responses, especially signaling pathways [17]. The overlap in this latest response, and the induction of common defense responses, allows plants to establish efficient acclimation mechanisms for cross-tolerance, such as morphological adjustments, the overproduction of specific transcription factors, the activation of multiple stress-signaling pathways, protective metabolites, and epigenetic modifications [2,18,19,20]. This acquired tolerance is crucial for the growth and development of plants, since, under natural field conditions, they are frequently exposed to many stresses instantaneously or successively [21]. Such a process has been observed and reported across various herbaceous species. For instance, heat pretreatment increases plant tolerance not only to heat but also to cold [22,23], salinity [22], and drought [24] by reducing leaf water loss, decreasing the oxidative injuries of the photosynthetic apparatus, and increased growth. Saini et al. [25] showed that drought priming allowed chickpea seedlings to maintain membrane stability during cold exposure through the improvement of mitochondrial functioning. In the same context, Li et al. [26] reported that drought priming enhanced subsequent heat tolerance in wheat plants by maintaining water homeostasis, photosynthetic ability, and biomass production. Furthermore, in tomato, Yang et al. [27] showed that salt priming improved temperature tolerance through photosynthetic accommodation. These studies reported that the useful effects of cross-priming are mainly attributed to a plethora of processes, imperatively mediated by osmoregulation, photosynthesis regulation through stomatal control and transpiration, ion homoeostasis, and especially the mitigation of oxidative stress.
Even though this process has been noticed, as mentioned above, for many types of stresses, the cross-tolerance ability of salt priming to induce subsequent drought tolerance has only been recently investigated by few studies. Accordingly, Pushpavalli et al. [28] reported that the pretreatment of chickpea by salinity enhanced its tolerance when exposed to terminal drought, resulting in higher grain yield compared to nonprimed plants. In addition, Feng et al. [29] revealed that salt priming regulates growth and photosynthesis in drought-stressed cotton via the regulation of the activation of antioxidant system. Moreover, the results of Yang et al. [30] displayed that salt priming improved the subsequent tolerance to drought in tomato plants, mainly via the mitigation of damage in the photosynthetic apparatus; this study showed that salt priming increased the rate of photosynthetic assimilation and photochemical efficiency in tomato plants compared with non-pretreated plants by inducing nonphotochemical quenching, maintaining cyclic electron flow, and alleviating the damage to the thylakoid membrane. Indeed, this type of cross-tolerance between drought and salinity would be of particular interest, since salinity constitutes a major common abiotic stress under natural environments due to frequent irrigation [31]. In parallel, plants always suffer from the negative effects of drought, particularly in Mediterranean arid regions [32]. Furthermore, these two stresses are regarded as the main factors affecting olive crop performance and productivity. Nonetheless, there is no report regarding the ameliorative efficiency of drought tolerance through salinity priming in olive plants.
Therefore, the objective of the present study was to assess whether and how salt priming regulated plant growth and physiological and biochemical responses under subsequent drought stress, and to unravel the underlying mechanisms for this process in young olive plants cv. Chétoui, a drought-sensitive variety. This innovative approach would aim at olive plants raised from priming treatment at nursery scale to perform better in terms of drought stress tolerance once planted in the field.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Greenhouse Conditions and Cross-Priming Application

Greenhouse conditions for all the experiment cultures were maintained with a temperature regime of 25/17 °C day/night, an air relative humidity of 70–75%, and 16 h photoperiod. Young olive seedlings cv. Chétoui were (i) firstly primed with salt stress (200 mM NaCl) for 21 days (d), (ii) recovered for another 60 d, and (iii) finally exposed to drought stress (withholding water) for 30 d.
In detail, olive plants (seven-month-old) were cultivated in 10 L pots filled with inert sand and watered every 2 d with 200 mL of Hoagland nutrient solution for 3 weeks, and subsequently divided, as indicated in Figure 1, into three lots: C— control plants, received every 2 d with 200 mL of Hoagland solution for 111 d; NPPs—nonprimed plants, well-watered for 81 d with 200 mL of Hoagland nutrient solution before being water-stressed for 30 d; SPPs—salt-primed plants, primed by salt exposure to 200 mM NaCl (irrigation every two d with 200 mL of Hoagland solution containing 200 mM NaCl) for 21 d of salt exposure, recovered for 60 d, and subsequently exposed to drought for 30 d.
A complete randomized design was used in the experiment, and plants from each treatment were chosen by a random sample and independently from plants in other treatments. In total, 300 plants were used, 100 per treatment (C, NPPs, and SPPs). Each studied variable was measured/determined with 6 replicates (6 plants) per treatment.

2.2. Physiological Analysis

2.2.1. Growth and Relative Water Content Determination

Plants were collected in the morning and separated into leaves and roots. Dry weights were noted after total desiccation in an oven at 60 °C for approximately two weeks. The relative water content (RWC) of leaves was determined as described in Ben Abdallah et al. [6].

2.2.2. Gas-Exchange, Pigment, and Fluorescence Measurement

Gas-exchange parameters were determined using a portable open-system infrared gas analyzer LCi instrument (Analytical Development Company Ltd., Hoddesdon, UK). Characteristics measurements of net CO2 assimilation (A), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and intercellular CO2 assimilation (Ci) were made from 10.00 to 12.00 h on a fully expanded 3rd leaf (from top) of each plant (6 plants per treatment). The following conditions were used for the measurement: 398 ± 1 μmol mol−1 CO2 concentration; 30 ± 0.3 °C leaf temperature; 1012 mBar atmospheric pressure. Water-use efficiency (WUE) was measured as the ratio of CO2 assimilation to stomatal conductance (A/gs).
Fluorescence measurement (maximum quantum efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) and the effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry (Y)) and photosynthetic pigments (total chlorophylls (Chl a and b) and carotenoids (Car)) were monitored during the experiment as detailed in Ben Abdallah et al. [6].

2.2.3. Determination of Leaf Density

Leaf density was calculated as reported in Guerfel et al. [33]; D = (DM/FM) × 1000, with DM = leaf dry mass and FM = leaf fresh mass

2.3. Biochemical Analysis

2.3.1. Proline and Sugar Content

The quantitative estimation of proline and sugar contents were carried out according to Bates et al. [34] and Yemm and Willis [35], respectively, as reported in Ben Abdallah et al. [6,36].

2.3.2. Estimation of Lipid Peroxidation and Electrolyte Leakage

Malondialdehyde (MDA) was measured in olive leaves to estimate the level of lipid peroxidation, using the method of Heath and Packer [37].
The electrolyte leakage (EL) was quantified according to the method described in Ben Abdallah et al. [6,36].

2.3.3. Protein Extraction and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities

For protein extraction, olive leaves were firstly lyophilized, powdered, and then homogenized in 100 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.5). The homogenate was centrifuged at 14,000× g for 30 min and then the supernatant was used for enzyme estimation.
Using the bovine serum albumin (BSA) as standard, the total protein content in foliar olive samples was calculated by the Bradford reaction [38]. SOD, CAT, and GP activities were assayed as described in Ben Abdallah et al. [36].

2.3.4. Estimation of Total Phenol Amount and Its Antioxidant Activity

For the determination of total phenolic concentration, we used the Folin–Ciocalteu according to the method of Skerget et al. [39], slightly modified. The antioxidant activity of these phenolic extracts was quantified using the DPPH assay method as previously described in Ben Abdallah et al. [36].

2.3.5. Lipid Extraction and Fatty Acid Determination

Total lipids were extracted using the method of Folch et al. [40], modified by Bligh and Dyer [41]. Fatty acids from total lipids were methylated according to the method of Metcalfe et al. [42]. The separation and quantification of the methyl esters of fatty acids were determined using a gas chromatography (GC) as detailed in Nouairi et al. [43].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was determined using the R software v3.6 (R Core Team, 2013). The data set was checked for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test, respectively. One-way variance analysis (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate statistical differences among treatments; the HSD Tukey test was used (p < 0.05) when significant differences were detected. Finally, all studied parameters in C, NPP, and SPP were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) to explore relationships among variables and treatments.

3. Results

3.1. Changes in Seedlings Biomass and Relative Water Content

As shown in Figure 2a, under drought stress for 30 days, the growth of the NPPs was markedly reduced by −42% compared to the control. Interestingly, salt priming significantly improved plant growth when grown under drought conditions. Likewise, the total dry weight of the roots was found significantly unchanged between primed and nonprimed plants.
Under drought conditions, the NPPs showed a significantly reduced RWC, to values below 40%. In contrast, the SPPs showed a better RWC content (76%) than that of the nonprimed ones (Figure 3).

3.2. Changes in Osmoticums

Our results revealed that drought stress had no significant change on proline content; however, it increased that of total sugar (Figure 4a,b). On the other hand, the SPPs showed higher sugar and proline contents than the NPPs (Figure 4a,b).

3.3. Changes in Photosynthesis Parameters

Water stress reduced net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance (gs), and transpiration rate (E) in the NPPs relative to the control (Figure 5a–c). Interestingly, the SPPs exhibited improved photosynthetic performance when compared to the NPPs, as evidenced by higher leaf A, with a level similar to that of the control. In the SPPs, E and gs diminished slightly compared to the control, but still higher than the NPPs (Figure 5a–c). Moreover, in contrast to the NPPs, which displayed an increase in Ci, our results showed a maintenance of Ci in the SPPs when compared to the control plants (Figure 6a).

3.4. Changes in Leaf Density, Intercellular CO2 Assimilation, Water-Use Efficiency, Photosynthetic Pigments, and PSII Photochemistry

Our results showed that, relative to unstressed plants, drought stress increased leaf density in both the NPPs and the SPPs. Nonetheless, leaves from the latest exhibited a higher density than the leaves of the NPPs (Table 1).
Additionally, Figure 6b indicates that drought increased Ci in the NPPs; however, the SPPs showed a maintenance of this parameter when compared to the control plants (Figure 6b).
Likewise, Figure 6a reveals a large increase of the WUE in the SPPs when compared to the NPPs.
Moreover, Figure 7a,b shows that the content of photosynthetic pigments (Chl and Car) both in the NPPs and SPPs showed no significant differences as compared to the control.
Results also revealed that water deficit negatively affected the photochemistry of the PSII of the NPPs, as verified by the concomitant decrease in the Fv/Fm ratio and Y in comparison with the control plants (Table 1). However, the SPPs displayed attenuation in stress effects, as their Fv/Fm ratio and Y became close to those of the nondrought conditions (Table 1).

3.5. Effect on Lipid Metabolism

Our results showed that drought generated a significant reduction in the lipid concentration (−71%) in the NPPs relative to the control (Figure 8a). However, a marked increase was found in the SPPs when compared to the NPPs and to the control (Figure 8a).
In Table 2, we show the change in the fatty acid composition induced by water stress. Our results revealed that drought increased saturated fatty acid levels associated with a decrease of the major unsaturated ones: C18:1 and C18:3 in the NPPs. The SPPs displayed a modification in fatty acids composition, which is marked by a decrease in the majority of fatty acid percentages, except that of C18:3.
Furthermore, Figure 8b,c shows that drought decreased the ratio the UFAs/SFAs and the DBI index in the nonprimed plants when compared to the control. In contrast, the SPPs showed stability in the DBI index and an increase in the ratio of UFAs/SFAs.

3.6. Changes in MDA Contents and Electrolyte Leakage

Drought stress significantly increased the foliar oxidative damage. Indeed, compared to the control plants, drought induced an increase in the level of the MDA content and EC in the NPPs relative to the control (Figure 9a,b). Contrarily, the SPPs exhibited significantly lower EC and MDA values than those of the NPPs (Figure 9a,b).

3.7. Changes in Antioxidant Enzymes Activity

In the NPPs, the SOD activity remained unchanged, that of the GP was reduced, and only the CAT activity was increased. Nonetheless, NaCl priming increased greatly CAT, SOD, and GP activities in the SPPs relative to the NPPs and to the control (Table 3).

3.8. Changes in Phenolic Content and on Antioxidant Activity (IC50)

Drought increased the concentrations of phenolic compounds in the NPPs. However, the SPPs displayed greater accumulation of these compounds compared to the NPPs and to the control (Figure 10a).
The IC50 values of phenolic extracts exhibited a decrease in the SPPs when compared to both the NPPs and the control (Figure 10b), confirming a better antioxidant activity in the primed plants than either.

3.9. PCA Analysis

In order to find the best parameters that can explain the real ameliorative status of salt-primed olive plants under the drought condition, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA) (Figure 11) that correlated all of the investigated variables, including growth parameters (shoot and root biomass accumulation), water status (RWC), gas exchange and PSII photochemistry parameters (A, E, gs, WUE, Ci, Fv/Fm, Y), photosynthetic pigments (total content of Chl and Car), leaf density (D), osmolytes (contents of total sugar and proline), oxidative stress parameters (contents of MDA and EL percent), enzymatic antioxidants (activities of SOD, CAT, GP), nonenzymatic antioxidant (content of phenols and their antioxidant activity), and lipids and their fatty acid composition (total lipids, DBI, UFAs) with the three treatments (C, SPPs, and NPPs).
Our results showed that the first two components (PCs) explained 85,4% of total variance (55% and 30.4% for PC1 (Dim1) and PC2 (Dim2), respectively (Figure 11)).
The PCA analysis revealed a clear separation between the C, NPP, and SPP olive seedlings grown under the subsequent drought condition. The PCA biplot indicated the involvement of osmoprotectants (proline and sugar), the enzymatic antioxidant system (SOD, CAT, and GP), as well as the nonenzymatic one (phenols and, at less degree, carotenoids), and an increase in leaf density together with, to a lesser extent, the raise of structural lipids content in the acquisition of the subsequent drought tolerance in the SPPs.
Interestingly, the PCA analysis indicated that a high WUE was mostly associated with the salt pretreatment under the subsequent drought stress, implying that this priming method positively regulates the WUE.

4. Discussion

Recently, cross-priming was used in many plant species to induce tolerance to abiotic stresses. However, in trees such as olive, there is scarce information about the effectiveness of this approach. In the present work, we have used salt priming as an elicitor to induce tolerance for subsequent drought stress in olive plants cv. Chétoui, a drought-sensitive olive cultivar. Here, physiological and biochemical signatures linked to both damage (effects) and defense were determined under the upcoming drought-stress events.

4.1. Improvement of Growth, Water Homeostasis, Photosynthetic Activity, Structural Membrane Lipids Contents, and ROS Elimination Confirming the Beneficial Effects of Salt Priming to Mitigate Subsequent Drought Damages in Olive Seedlings

Under stressful conditions such as drought, whole-olive-plant physiology, and thus growth, can be impaired with the alteration of leaf-water status, the inhibition of photosynthesis ability, including photochemical efficiency, and the oxidative degradation of membrane lipids [6,36,44]. Here, as expected, when exposed to water stress for 30 d, the NPPs exhibited significantly reduced growth, as evidenced with the reduction in aerial biomass accumulation compared to the control, which could be the consequence of the loss of cellular turgor as manifested by the significant reduction of the RWC to values below 40%, leading to the inhibition of expansion and cell division [45,46]. Moreover, this reduction in growth parameters might be due to the inhibition of photosynthesis. Indeed, our findings showed that drought severely affected the photosynthetic ability in the NPPs, probably by the photoinhibition of the photochemical apparatus, since these plants showed a very low level of Y and Fv/Fm. Furthermore, drought was observed to reduce the lipid concentration relative to the control, which could result from alterations in the lipid synthesis under water deficit and/or an increase in lipid peroxidation [47]. In fact, the enhanced MDA accumulation in our study, which reflected a high lipid peroxidation rate, and therefore an overproduction of the ROS, confirmed that drought stress in olive plants was associated to oxidative processes resulting in membrane instability. In addition, the observed increase in the EC percent could also support the high level of membrane injury resulting from the oxidative damage.
In contrast, it is clear from our results that salt priming promoted better response to subsequent drought stress in olive by the improvement of the RWC content (70%) and the shoot biomass production. On the other hand, the root biomass production was found significantly unchanged between the NPPs and SPPs, which is a classical response of olive under drought.
Importantly, despite the total restriction of water during 30 d, our physiological data revealed that the SPPs displayed net photosynthesis rate similar to the control, while in the NPPs, the values were severely reduced. Indeed, the SPPs can maintain a healthy photosynthetic capacity despite the decrease of gs and E compared to the control, but these values are higher than those of the NPPs. Therefore, salt priming seemed to help olive seedlings maintain a functional, although low, level of gas exchange. Thus, under water-limited conditions, the SPPs, which displayed a higher RWC, might be able to maintain greater stomatal conductance, eventually resulting in maintaining better photosynthetic activity than in the NPPs. In this sense, the SPPs showed the maintenance of Ci when compared to the control plants. Contrarily, the Ci increased in the NPPs, reflecting a predominance of nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis [48]. It was also interesting in this study that, in the SPPs, even after 30 d of water withholding, the Y and Fv/Fm were not affected by stress and exhibited similar values as the control plants, indicating that the PSII integrity was not affected. In accordance with our results, Feng et al. [29] revealed that salt priming enhanced subsequent drought tolerance in wheat plants by maintaining water homeostasis, photosynthetic ability, and biomass production. Furthermore, Yang et al. [30] showed that salt priming increased the rate of photosynthetic assimilation and photochemical efficiency under drought conditions in tomato plants compared with the non-pretreated ones.
In addition, it seemed that priming had a positive effect on leaf membrane integrity. In fact, drought was observed to raise the total lipid content of the SPPs when compared to that of the NPPs and the control, indicating that priming increases the foliar lipid synthesis. This finding could therefore reflect a stability of the functional properties of cellular biomembranes under water stress. In support of this notion, our results revealed that the MDA content and the EC percent in the SPPs were similar to the control (and lower than those of the NPPs), suggesting that no oxidative damage occurred. Similar results was obtained in wheat seedlings [29].
The above results were consistent with that of our PCA (Figure 11), which revealed that the SPPs attained the same extent of tolerance against stress when compared to the control plants.
From these results, it is clear that the first exposure of the olive plants to salinity made them more effective in responding to the subsequent stress (Figure 12). This is because there are many similarities between salinity and drought stresses. In fact, it is well-known that these two stresses activate common signaling pathways and defense responses [17], which allows olive plants to establish efficient acclimation mechanisms for cross-tolerance. Evidently, all these beneficial effects of cross-priming observed in the olive plants under the subsequent drought event are the complex result of many physiological, metabolic, and genetic mechanisms, and we considered that changes in all of which could be implicated in this observed drought acclimation. The possible physiological and metabolic modulations linked to this process are further discussed below (Figure 11 and Figure 12).

4.2. Physiological and Metabolic Adjustments Induced by Cross-Priming under Subsequent Drought in Young Olive Seedlings

4.2.1. Cross-Priming Induced Accumulation of Osmoticums and Morphofunctional Mechanisms in Olive Leaves

Indeed, the maintenance of the RWC at 76% under limited water conditions would help the SPPs to have minimal cell turgidity, indicating a good ability of osmotic adjustment, a famous physiological mechanism adopted by the olive tree, through the accumulation of osmoticums, notably proline and sugar, to mitigate drought effects [49]. These small compounds could have double roles, either in osmoregulation or in osmoprotection, as low-molecular-weight chaperons and ROS scavengers [50,51]. In our study, the SPPs exhibited a significant increase in both total sugar and proline amounts relative to the NPPs. This greater increase on osmoticums would favor the better maintenance of water homeostasis in the SPPs, leading to drought acclimation towards activating other morphofunctional processes of adaptation.
One of the best-studied morphofunctional mechanisms acting as first lines of defense against immediate dehydration is stomata functionality [52,53]. We have already reported that the SPPs are able to maintain a healthy photosynthetic capacity despite the decrease of gs and E. Similar results were found by Ennajeh et al. [54] in olive plants; this study showed that under drought conditions, Chemlali, a drought-tolerant olive cultivar, maintained high levels of photosynthetic assimilation despite a decrease in E and gs. These authors have explained this finding by morphoanatomical changes. In the same way, it has been reported that modifications in leaf anatomical features impair the components of CO2 conductance diffusion from the substomatal cavities to the sites of carboxylation, ensuring photosynthetic activity even at a low level of stomatal conductance [55,56]. Recently, Shinga et al. [57] reported that both the improved plant water status and reduced ABA signaling improved the stomatal opening and thus significantly increased leaf photosynthesis under the salinity stress. Moreover, it has been reported that variations in leaf thickness and/or leaf density that contribute to drought tolerance could be the reasons for the decrease in the leaf size and differences in specific leaf area [33,58]. Our results showed that leaves from the SPPs exhibited an increase in their density compared to those of the NPPs. This characteristic would confer a more mechanic stability to leaves of the SPPs [59]. Previous studies suggested that the ameliorative action of this priming method was due to the fact that salt-stress signal cascades might induce downstream overlapping transduction pathways that improve the photosynthetic acclimation of seedlings under low-temperature stress, which is consistent with the mechanisms of cross-tolerance [27,60,61].
Interestingly, our results indicated a significant increase of the WUE in the SPPs relative to the NPPs. Further, the PCA analysis indicated that a high WUE was mostly associated with salt pretreatment under the subsequent drought stress, implying that this priming method positively regulates the WUE to help maintain the growth and survival of olive seedlings under drought conditions. In agreement with our results, Shinga et al. [57] found that drought priming clearly enhanced the WUE level of wheat plants under subsequent salinity stress. Concerning photosynthetic pigments, their contents remain unchanged as compared to the control both in the SPPs and the NPPs.

4.2.2. Cross-Priming Allowed to Olive Plants to Maintain Their Structural Lipid Contents as Well as Their Fatty Acid Composition to Protect the Photosystem Functionality

It is well-known that the polyunsaturated fatty acid deficiency made the PSII extremely sensitive to photoinhibition in Kanervo et al. [62]. In fact, polyunsaturated fatty acids were known to be involved in the photosystem’s integrity and functionality [63] and for the establishment of the appropriate balance of the bilayer and nonbilayer lipids within photosynthetic membranes [64,65]. In the current study, the total lipid content of the SPPs increased when compared to that of the NPPs and the control, indicating that priming increases the foliar lipid synthesis. Despite the modification in fatty acids composition, which is marked by a decrease in the majority of fatty acid percentages, except that of C18:3, the SPPs showed, compared to the control, a slight diminution in the UFAs/SFAs ratio. Nonetheless, this latest remains higher than that of the NPPs, although the DBI index remained constant. Such increase in the fatty acids content, as well as their unsaturation level, could therefore contribute to the protection and the stability of the functional organization of photosynthetic membranes under water stress. Indeed, many works had associated the development of acquired cross-tolerance with a change in the fatty acid and lipid metabolism. From these works, it seems that increasing the unsaturation rate of fatty acids is positively correlated with abiotic stress tolerance, as it maintains membrane stability and enhances subsequent stress tolerance [66,67]. For example, the research on Kentucky bluegrass revealed that, under heat stress conditions, drought-primed plants exhibited, compared to the control, higher total fatty acids [66], with a greater increase in the content of linolenic acid (C18:3). Furthermore, the rise in C18:3 and the unsaturation degree has been reported to have a major role in acquiring drought, heat, and cold tolerance [65,67].

4.2.3. Cross-Priming Induces Antioxidant Defense to Survive Drought Stress

Here, unlike the NPPs, the maintenance of redox homoeostasis in the SPPs reflected the efficacy of salt priming to protect them against drought-induced oxidative injuries. To prevent stress-induced cell destruction, plants usually require the enzymatic antioxidant defense. Importantly, NaCl priming increased greatly the activities of the SOD, CAT, and GP in the SPPs relative to the NPPs, indicating an enhanced superoxide radical and H2O2 scavenging ability in the SPPs. It seems that the regulatory effect of salt priming greatly depends on the ROS scavenging ability by enhancing the activities of enzymatic antioxidant. Accordingly, Feng et al. [29] noticed that the activation of the enzymatic antioxidant system through salt priming plays a key role in the acquisition of drought tolerance in cotton seedlings.
Further, during drought stress, plants often rely on phenolic compounds due to their role in detoxifying free radicals [10]. Our results revealed a higher augmentation in the phenol contents of the SPPs when compared with the NPPs. Importantly, our results indicated a better antioxidant activity in the SPPs than either, reflecting an effective phenolic–antioxidant defense system in these plants. Additionally, the great accumulation of proline and sugar observed in the SPPs could also participate to the protection against oxidative damage [50,51]. This better antioxidant system in the SPPs might be directly linked to improved resistance and hence reflects that salt priming enhanced tolerance defense responses, and thus physiological performance and growth, in olive seedlings. In the same line of ideas, Hossain et al. [68] hypothesized that the retention of the imprint of heat priming protects the plants from subsequent salt- and drought-induced oxidative injuries by amplifying the antioxidative enzyme defense systems.
Based on the PCA investigations, it is clear that metabolite adjustments (soluble sugars and proline), the enzymatic antioxidant system (SOD, CAT, and GP activities), as well as the nonenzymatic one (phenols and, at less degree, carotenoids), and the increase in leaf density as well as, to a lesser extent, the raise of structural lipids content are the principal strategies employed by the SPP plants to prevent stress damages under subsequent drought.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study support the key role of cross-priming in improving drought tolerance in olive plants. Consistently, our findings revealed that salt priming substantially modulated the physiological and biochemical responses of olive plants to subsequent drought (Figure 12). Accordingly, the possible strategies that seemed to perform a major role in the development of this improved tolerance to drought in olive seedlings involved the accumulation of osmoticums (total sugar and proline), improved the ROS scavenging system, and the increase in leaf density together with, to a lesser extent, the raise of structural lipids content. Importantly, these extensive modulations suggests that cross-priming can potentially confer immunity to the olive plant organism against drought through the storage of salt-stress stimuli.
Interestingly, for the first time in the olive tree, cross-priming could be considered as an efficient approach not only to improve plant responses to drought stress but also to convert this stressful spell to beneficial ones in terms of the WUE (Figure 11), a highly researched parameter in agronomy to improve crop yield.
Therefore, cross-priming might be a promising alternative for the amelioration of olive stress tolerance; however, these results need to be further validated under field conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: M.B.A., K.H. and N.B.Y. Performed the experiments: M.B.A. and K.M. Analyzed the data: M.B.A. and W.T. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: K.H. and N.B.Y. Wrote the manuscript: M.B.A. Revised the manuscript: K.H. and N.B.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Authors received financial support from the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Tunisia (LR10CBBC01), and from Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/94), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented are available upon request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the technical staff of the laboratory of olive biotechnology in the Biotechnology Center of Borj Cédria (Tunisia) for providing all the necessary green house and laboratory facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ma, Y.; Dias, M.C.; Freitas, H. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 591911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Liu, X.; Quan, W.; Bartels, D. Stress memory responses and seed priming correlate with drought tolerance in plants: An overview. Planta 2022, 255, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ramos, A.F.; Santos, F.L. Yield and olive oil characteristics of a low-density orchard (cv. Cordovil) subjected to different irrigation regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nardini, A.; Lo, M.A.; Trifilò, P.; Salleo, S. The challenge of the Mediterranean climate to plant hydraulics: Response and adaptations. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 97, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Silva, S.; Santos, C.; Serodio, J.; Silva, A.M.; Dias, M.C. Physiological performance of drought-stressed olive plants when exposed to a combined heat–UV-B shock and after stress relief. Funct. Plant Biol. 2018, 45, 1233–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ben Abdallah, M.; Trupiano, D.; Polzella, A.; De Zio, E.; Sassi, M.; Scaloni, A.; Zarrouk, M.; Ben Youssef, N.; Scippa, G.S. Unraveling physiological, biochemical and molecular mechanisms involved in olive (Olea europaea L. cv. Chétoui) tolerance to drought and salt stresses. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 220, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ben Ahmed, C.; Ben Rouina, B.; Boukhris, M.M. Effects of water deficit on olive trees cv. Chemlali under field conditions in arid region in Tunisia. Sci. Hortic. 2007, 113, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Proietti, P.; Antognozzi, E. Effect of irrigation on fruit quality of table olives, cultivar Ascolana tenera. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1996, 24, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bartolni, S.; Leccese, A.; Andreini, L. Influence of canopy fruit location on morphological, histochemical and biochemical changes in two oil olive cultivars. Plant Biosyst. 2014, 148, 1221–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Petridis, A.; Therios, I.; Samouris, G.; Koundouras, S.; Giannakoula, A. Effect of water deficit on leaf phenolic composition, gas exchange, oxidative damage and antioxidant activity of four Greek olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 60, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martinelli, F.; Remorini, D.; Saia, S.; Massai, R.; Tonutti, P. Metabolic profiling of ripe olive fruit in response to moderate water stress. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 159, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, X.; Huang, B. Drought priming-induced heat tolerance: Metabolic pathways and molecular mechanisms. In Priming-Mediated Stress and Cross-Stress Tolerance in Crop Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tippmann, H.F.; Schlüter, U.; Collinge, D.B.; Teixeira DaSilva, J.A. Common themes in biotic and abiotic stress signalling in plants. Floric.Ornam. Plant Biotechnol. 2006, 3, 52–67. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowler, C.; Fluhr, R. The role of calcium and activated oxygens as signals for controlling cross-tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 2000, 5, 1360–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Katam, R.; Shokri, S.; Murthy, N.; Singh, S.K.; Suravajhala, P.; Khan, M.N.; Bahmani, M.; Sakata, K.; Reddy, K.R. Proteomics, physiological, and biochemical analysis of cross tolerance mechanisms in response to heat and water stresses in soybean. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, H.; Able, A.J.; Able, J.A. Priming crops for the future: Rewiring stress memory. Trends Plant Sci. 2022, 27, 699–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Perincherry, L.; Stępień, Ł.; Vasudevan, S.E. Cross-Tolerance and Autoimmunity as Missing Links in Abiotic and Biotic Stress Responses in Plants: A Perspective toward Secondary Metabolic Engineering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 11945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Munné-Bosch, S.; Alegre, L. Cross-stress tolerance and stress “memory” in plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 94, 1–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Walter, J.; Jentsch, A.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Kreyling, J. Ecological stress memory and cross stress tolerance in plants in the face of climate extremes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 94, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Sattar, A.; Ijaz, M.; Sher, A.; Ul-Allah, S. Mitigating the adverse effects of drought stress through seed priming and seed quality on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 55, 313–319. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zandalinas, S.I.; Sengupta, S.; Fritschi, F.B.; Azad, R.K.; Nechushtai, R.; Mittler, R. The impact of multifactorial stress combination on plant growth and survival. New Phytol. 2021, 230, 1034–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gong, M.; Chen, B.; Li, Z.; Guo, L. Heat-shock-induced cross adaptation to heat, chilling, drought and salt stress in maize seedlings and involvement of H2O2. J. Plant Physiol. 2001, 158, 1125–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, L.J.; Huang, W.D.; Li, J.Y.; Liu, Y.F.; Shi, Y.L. Peroxidation of membrane lipid and Ca2+ homeostasis in grape mesophyll cells during the process of cross adaptation to temperature stresses. Plant Sci. 2004, 167, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kuznetsov, V.V.; Rakitin, V.Y.; Zholkevich, V.N. Effects of preliminary heat-shock treatment on accumulation of osmolytes and drought resistance in cotton plants during water deficiency. Physiol. Plant. 1999, 107, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saini, R.; Adhikary, A.; Nayyar, H.; Kumar, S. Cross-priming accentuates key biochemical and molecular indicators of defense and improves cold tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Acta Physiol. Plant. 2019, 41, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, X.; Topbjerg, H.B.; Jiang, D.; Liu, F. Drought priming at vegetative stage improves the antioxidant capacity and photosynthesis performance of wheat exposed to a short-term low temperature stress at jointing stage. Plant Soil 2015, 393, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, X.; Zou, F.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, J.; Qi, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, T. NaCl Pretreatment Enhances the Low Temperature Tolerance of Tomato Through Photosynthetic Acclimation. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pushpavalli, R.; Berger, J.D.; Turner, N.C.; Siddique, K.H.; Colmer, T.D.; Vadez, V. Cross-tolerance for drought, heat and salinity stresses in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2020, 206, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feng, X.C.; Sun, Y.L.; Bai, X.F. Salinity induced cross tolerance to drought in cotton seedlings is associated with reduced lipid peroxidation and photoprotection through activation of antioxidant system. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 21, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, X.; Li, Y.; Chen, H.; Huang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, T. Photosynthetic response mechanism of soil salinity-induced cross-tolerance to subsequent drought stress in tomato plants. Plants 2020, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Isayenkov, S.V. Genetic sources for the development of salt tolerance in crops. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 89, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yadav, R.; Juneja, S.; Kumar, S. Cross priming with drought improves heat-tolerance in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) by stimulating small heat shock proteins and antioxidative defense. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 4, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guerfel, M.; Baccouri, O.; Boujnah, D.; Chaibi, W.; Zarrouk, M. Impacts of water stress on gas exchange water relations, chlorophyll content and leaf structure in the two main Tunisian olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 11, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bates, L.S.; Waldren, R.P.; Teare, I.D. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil 1973, 39, 205–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yemm, E.W.; Willis, A.J. The estimation of carbohydrates in plants extracts by anthrone. Biochem. J. 1954, 90, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Ben Abdallah, M.; Methenni, K.; Nouairi, I.; Zarrouk, M.; Ben Youssef, N. Drought priming improves subsequent more severe drought in a drought-sensitive cultivar of olive cv. Chétoui. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 221, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Heath, R.L.; Packer, L. Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts: I: Kinetic and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1968, 125, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilising the principle of protein-dyebinding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Skerget, M.; Kotnik, P.; Hadolin, M.; Hras, A.R.; Simoni, M.; Knez, Z. Phenols, proanthocyanidins, flavones and flavonols in some plant materials and their antioxidant activities. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Folch, J.; Lees, M.; Sloane Stanley, G.H. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1957, 226, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bligh, E.G.; Dyer, W.J. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 1959, 37, 911–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Metcalfe, D.; Schmitz, A.; Pelka, J.R. Rapid preparation of fatty acid esters from lipids for gas chromatographic analysis. Anal. Chem. 1966, 38, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nouairi, I.; Methenni, K.; Mhadhbi, H.; Jbara, M. Effects of CaCl2 pretreatment on antioxidant enzyme and leaf lipid content of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seedlings under cadmium stress. Plant Growth Regul. 2012, 68, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Trabelsi, L.; Gargouri, K.; Hassena, A.B.; Mbadra, C.; Ghrab, M.; Ncube, B.; Van Staden, J.; Gargouri, R. Impact of drought and salinity on olive water status and physiological performance in an arid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Kobayashi, N.; Fujita, D.; Basra, S.M.A. Plant Drought Stress: Effects, Mechanisms and Management. In Sustainable Agriculture; Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Vé ronique, S., Alberola, C., Eds.; Springer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 153–188. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dias, M.C.; Correia, C.; Serôdio, J.; Silva, A.M.S.; Freitas, H.; Santos, C. Chlorophyll fluorescence and oxidative stress endpoints to discriminate olive cultivars tolerance to drought and heat episodes. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 231, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guerfel, M.; Baccouri, O.; Boujnah, D.; Zarrouk, M. Changes in lipid composition, water relations and gas exchange in leaves of two young ‘Chemlali’ and ‘Chetoui’ olive trees in response to water stress. Plant Soil 2008, 311, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Flexas, J.; Medrano, H. Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann. Bot. 2002, 89, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sofo, A.; Dichio, B.; Xiloyannis, C.; Masia, A. Lipoxygenase activity and proline accumulation in leaves and roots of olive tree in response to drought stress. Physiol. Plant. 2004, 121, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ben Youssef, N.; Al-Moaikal, R.M.S.; Al-Hawas, G.H.S.; Alrammah, F.M. Up-modulation of membrane lipid composition and functionality by seed priming under salinity in the Hasawi rice variety. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2020, 93, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kaur, G.; Asthir, B. Proline: A key player in plant abiotic stress tolerance. Biol. Plant. 2015, 59, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pinior, A.; Grunewaldt-Stöcker, G.; Von Alten, H.; Strasser, R.J. Mycorrhizal impact on drought stress tolerance of rose plants probed by chlorophyll a fuorescence, proline content and visual scoring. Mycorrhiza 2005, 15, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jiang, Y.; Huang, B. Osmotic adjustment and root growth associated with drought preconditioning enhanced heat tolerance in Kentucky bluegrass. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1168–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ennajeh, M.; Tounekti, T.; Vadel, A.M.; Khemira, H.; Cochard, H. Water relations and drought-induced embolism in two olive (Olea europaea L.) varieties ‘Meski’ and ‘Chemlali’ under severe drought conditions. Tree Physiol. 2008, 28, 971–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Chartzoulakis, K.; Patakas, A.; Bosabalidis, A.M. Changes in water relations, photosynthesis and leaf anatomy induced by intermittent drought in two olive cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1999, 42, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Evans, J.R.; Loreto, F. Acquisition and diffusion of CO2 in higher plant leaves. In Photosynthesis: Physiology and Metabolism; Leegood, R.C., Sharkey, T.D., von Caemmerer, S., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 321–351. [Google Scholar]
  57. Singha, A.; Soothar, R.K.; Wang, C.; Marín, E.E.T.; Tankari, M.; Hao, W.; Wang, Y. Drought priming alleviated salinity stress and improved water use efficiency of wheat plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 96, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Veneklaas, E.J.; Silva, M.S.; den Ouden, F. Determinants of growth rate in Ficus benjamina L. compared to related faster-growing woody and herbaceous species. Sci. Hortic. 2002, 93, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Niinemets, U. Global-scale climatic controls of leaf dry mass per area, density, and thickness in trees and shrubs. Ecology 2001, 82, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hossain, M.A.; Li, Z.G.; Hoque, T.S.; Burritt, D.J.; Fujita, M.; Munné-Bosch, S. Heat or cold priming-induced cross-tolerance to abiotic stresses in plants: Key regulators and possible mechanisms. Protoplasma 2018, 255, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gong, Z.; Xiong, L.; Shi, H.; Yang, S.; Herrera-Estrella, L.R.; Xu, G. Plant abiotic stress response and nutrient use efficiency. Sci. China Life Sci. 2020, 63, 635–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kanervo, E.; Aro, E.M.; Murata, N. Low unsaturation level of thylakoid membrane lipids limits turnover of the D1 protein of photosystem II at high irradiance. FEBS Lett. 1995, 364, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Quinn, P.J.; Willliams, W.P. The structural role of lipids in photosynthetic membranes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1983, 737, 223–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gounaris, K.; Mannock, D.A.; Sen, A.; Brain, A.P.R.; Williams, W.P.; Quinn, P.J. Polyunsaturated fatty acyl residues of galactolipids are involved in the control of bilayer/ non bilayer lipid transitions in higher plant chloroplasts. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1983, 732, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, C.; Tian, S. Peach fruit acquired tolerance to low temperature stress by accumulation of linolenic acid and N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine in plasma membrane. Food Chem. 2010, 120, 864–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Peng, Y.; Xu, C.; Xu, L.; Huang, B. Improved heat tolerance through drought preconditioning associated with changes in lipid composition, antioxidant enzymes, and protein expression in Kentucky bluegrass. Crop Sci. 2012, 52, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, J.; Juliani, H.R.; Jespersen, D.; Huang, B. Differential profiles of membrane proteins, fatty acids, and sterols associated with genetic variations in heat tolerance for a perennial grass species, hard fescue (Festuca trachyphylla). Environ. Exp. Bot. 2017, 140, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hossain, M.A.; Mostofa, M.G.; Fujita, M. Heat-shock positively modulates oxidative protection of salt and drought-stressed mustard (Brassica campestris L.) seedlings. J. Plant Sci. Mol. Breed. 2013, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 14 04050 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram of the experiment design. C: control plants, well-watered during 111 d experiment; NPPs: nonprimed plants, well-watered for 81 d and then stressed by withholding water for 30 d; SPPs: salt-primed plants, primed by exposure to salinity (200 mM NaCl) for 21 d, recovered for 60 d, and then exposed to water depletion for 30 d as with the NPPs.
Figure 1. Diagram of the experiment design. C: control plants, well-watered during 111 d experiment; NPPs: nonprimed plants, well-watered for 81 d and then stressed by withholding water for 30 d; SPPs: salt-primed plants, primed by exposure to salinity (200 mM NaCl) for 21 d, recovered for 60 d, and then exposed to water depletion for 30 d as with the NPPs.
Water 14 04050 g001
Water 14 04050 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of cross-tolerance on shoot biomass (a) and root biomass (b) of olive plants subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 2. Effect of cross-tolerance on shoot biomass (a) and root biomass (b) of olive plants subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g002
Water 14 04050 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes in relative water content (RWC) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 3. Changes in relative water content (RWC) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g003
Water 14 04050 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of cross-tolerance on soluble sugar (a) and proline (b) concentrations of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 4. Effect of cross-tolerance on soluble sugar (a) and proline (b) concentrations of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g004
Water 14 04050 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in CO2−assimilation rate, A (a), stomatal conductance, gs (b), transpiration rate, E (c), of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 5. Changes in CO2−assimilation rate, A (a), stomatal conductance, gs (b), transpiration rate, E (c), of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g005
Water 14 04050 g006 550
Figure 6. Changes in water-use efficiency (WUE) (a) and intercellular CO2 assimilation (Ci) (b) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 6. Changes in water-use efficiency (WUE) (a) and intercellular CO2 assimilation (Ci) (b) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g006
Water 14 04050 g007 550
Figure 7. Changes in total chlorophyll content (a) and carotenoid content (b) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 7. Changes in total chlorophyll content (a) and carotenoid content (b) of primed and nonprimed olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g007
Water 14 04050 g008 550
Figure 8. Changes in total lipid content (a), UFAs/SFAs × (unsaturated-to-saturated fatty acid ratio) (b) and in DBI × (double-bond index = R (unsaturated fatty acid × number of double bonds) (c) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 8. Changes in total lipid content (a), UFAs/SFAs × (unsaturated-to-saturated fatty acid ratio) (b) and in DBI × (double-bond index = R (unsaturated fatty acid × number of double bonds) (c) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g008
Water 14 04050 g009 550
Figure 9. Changes in malondialdehyde, MDA (a), and electrolyte leakage, EC, percent (b) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 9. Changes in malondialdehyde, MDA (a), and electrolyte leakage, EC, percent (b) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g009
Water 14 04050 g010 550
Figure 10. Effect of cross-tolerance on phenol content (a) and antioxidant activity (b) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Figure 10. Effect of cross-tolerance on phenol content (a) and antioxidant activity (b) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Water 14 04050 g010
Water 14 04050 g011 550
Figure 11. PCA biplot showing the clustering of nonprimed (NPP), salt-primed (SPP), and control (C) olive seedlings based on growth, physiological and biochemical traits. Shoot dry biomass production (PS shoots); root dry biomass production (PS roots); relative water content (RWC); net CO2 assimilation (A), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and intercellular CO2 assimilation (Ci); water-use efficiency (WUE); maximum quantum efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm); effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry (Y); total chlorophylls (Chl); carotenoids (Car); leaf density (D); total sugar (sugar); proline (proline); lipid peroxidation (MDA); electrolyte leakage (EL); superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and guaiacol peroxidase (GP); phenols(phenols); antioxidant activity (DPPH. IC50); total lipid content (tot. lipids); unsaturated-to-saturated fatty acid ratio (UFAs); double-bond index (DBI).
Figure 11. PCA biplot showing the clustering of nonprimed (NPP), salt-primed (SPP), and control (C) olive seedlings based on growth, physiological and biochemical traits. Shoot dry biomass production (PS shoots); root dry biomass production (PS roots); relative water content (RWC); net CO2 assimilation (A), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and intercellular CO2 assimilation (Ci); water-use efficiency (WUE); maximum quantum efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm); effective quantum yield of PSII photochemistry (Y); total chlorophylls (Chl); carotenoids (Car); leaf density (D); total sugar (sugar); proline (proline); lipid peroxidation (MDA); electrolyte leakage (EL); superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and guaiacol peroxidase (GP); phenols(phenols); antioxidant activity (DPPH. IC50); total lipid content (tot. lipids); unsaturated-to-saturated fatty acid ratio (UFAs); double-bond index (DBI).
Water 14 04050 g011
Water 14 04050 g012 550
Figure 12. A model scheme for cross-tolerance responses (physiological and biochemical) responses in salt-primed plants relative to nonprimed ones.
Figure 12. A model scheme for cross-tolerance responses (physiological and biochemical) responses in salt-primed plants relative to nonprimed ones.
Water 14 04050 g012
Table
Table 1. Effect of cross-tolerance on maximum efficiency of PSII photochemistry, Fv/Fm, and efficiency of PSII photochemistry, Y, and density of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Table 1. Effect of cross-tolerance on maximum efficiency of PSII photochemistry, Fv/Fm, and efficiency of PSII photochemistry, Y, and density of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
TreatmentFv/FmYD
C0.79 ± 0.01 b0.76 ± 0.03 b435 ± 60 a
SPP0.75 ± 0.02 b0.65 ± 0.02 b853 ± 40 c
NPP0.13 ± 0.02 a0.20 ± 0.03 a769 ± 50 b
Table
Table 2. Fatty acid composition (%) of leaf lipids of olive plants cv. ’Chetoui’ subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Table 2. Fatty acid composition (%) of leaf lipids of olive plants cv. ’Chetoui’ subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
C14:0C14:1C16:0C16:1C18:0C18:1C18:2C18:3C20:0
0.60 ± 0.03 a1.10 ± 0.12 a17.70 ± 1.55 a0.80 ± 0.05 a3.00 ± 0.04 a20.49 ± 0.46 a10.50 ± 0.52 a40.00 ± 1.41 b3.20 ± 0.20 a
0.78 ± 0.04 b0.87 ± 0.09 b20.01 ± 0.49 b0.94 ± 0.09 a2.88 ± 0.07 b19.44 ± 1.23 a10.57 ± 0.27 b41.73 ± 1.64 a2.76 ± 0.10 a
1.74 ± 0.32 a2.47 ± 0.38 a21.48 ± 1.23 b0.93 ± 0.03 a4.16 ± 0.21 a19.20 ± 0.91 a11.51 ± 0.43 b35.30 ± 0.48 c3.19 ± 0.32 a
Table
Table 3. Effect of cross-tolerance on CAT, superoxide dismutase, SOD, and guaiacol peroxidase, GP, activities (U mg−1 protein) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
Table 3. Effect of cross-tolerance on CAT, superoxide dismutase, SOD, and guaiacol peroxidase, GP, activities (U mg−1 protein) of olive leaves subjected to subsequent drought stress. Significant differences between the means (at p < 0.05, according to ANOVA) appear with different letters. Values are means ± standard error (n = 6), where ‘n’ is the number of replicates for each group.
TreatmentCATSODGP
C2.60 ± 0.31 a119.20 ± 11.12 a3.17 ± 0.50 b
SPP8.08 ± 0.33 b187.73 ± 9.67 b5.28 ± 0.26 c
NPP6.97 ± 0.44 b143.50 ± 12.50 a1.18 ± 0.08 a
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ben Abdallah, M.; Methenni, K.; Taamalli, W.; Hessini, K.; Ben Youssef, N. Cross-Priming Approach Induced Beneficial Metabolic Adjustments and Repair Processes during Subsequent Drought in Olive. Water 2022, 14, 4050. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244050

AMA Style

Ben Abdallah M, Methenni K, Taamalli W, Hessini K, Ben Youssef N. Cross-Priming Approach Induced Beneficial Metabolic Adjustments and Repair Processes during Subsequent Drought in Olive. Water. 2022; 14(24):4050. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244050

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ben Abdallah, Mariem, Kawther Methenni, Wael Taamalli, Kamel Hessini, and Nabil Ben Youssef. 2022. "Cross-Priming Approach Induced Beneficial Metabolic Adjustments and Repair Processes during Subsequent Drought in Olive" Water 14, no. 24: 4050. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14244050

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