<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2022.1312082</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-121930</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Response to Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi of Two Tomato (&lt;i&gt;Solanum lycopersicum&lt;/i&gt; L.) Varieties Subjected to Salt Stress under Semi-Controlled Conditions
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdou</surname><given-names>Khadre Sané</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aboubacry</surname><given-names>Kane</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bassirou</surname><given-names>Diallo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mariama</surname><given-names>Ngom</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Djibril</surname><given-names>Sané</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mame</surname><given-names>Ourèye Sy</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Laboratoire National de Recherches sur les Productions Végétales (LNRPV), Unité de recherche en culture in vitro (URCI), 
Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), Dakar, Sénégal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Laboratoire Commun de Microbiologie (LCM) IRD/ISRA/UCAD, Centre de Recherche de Bel Air, Dakar, Senegal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Laboratoire Campus de Biotechnologies végétales, Département de Biologie Végétale, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, 
Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Dakar, Sénégal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Laboratoire Mixte International-Adaptation des Plantes et Microorganismes associés aux Stress Environnementaux (LMI-LAPSE), IRD, ISRA, UCAD, Dakar, Sénégal</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>05</day><month>12</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>1334</fpage><lpage>1362</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>10,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>23,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Salinity is a major problem that seriously impacts agricultural production, particularly that of tomato (
  <em>Solanum lycopersicum</em> L.). However, the plant has the ability to associate with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to better tolerate salt stress. Thus, thanks to the extension of the AMF hyphae, the hydromineral nutrition and the tolerance to excess toxic ions (Na
  <sup>+</sup> and Cl
  <sup>-</sup>) of the plant are optimized. In this context, the contribution of AMF to the salt stress tolerance of two tomato varieties under semi-controlled conditions was studied. To do this, the frequency and intensity of mycorrhization, the relative mycorrhizal dependency, the survival rates, the aerial and root dry weights, the mineral (P, K
  <sup>+</sup>, Na
  <sup>+</sup>) and proline contents of the plants subjected to four levels of salinity [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl] were evaluated. All the parameters assessed appeared to be dependent on the variety, the fungal strain and the NaCl concentration. With the 
  <em>Lady Nema</em> variety, inoculation with the 
  <em>Claroideoglomus etunicatum</em> strain at [NaCl 140 mM] resulted in the highest frequencies (54%), intensities (40.47%), and relative mycorrhizal dependencies (19.65%). This same symbiotic couple recorded high survival rates (55%) and aerial (2.03 g) and root (0.50 g) dry weights. Significant contents of K
  <sup>+ </sup>(Leaves: 7.5 mg
  &amp;sdot;g
  <sup>-1</sup>; Roots: 4.4 mg
  &amp;sdot;g
  <sup>-1</sup> of dry matter), P (Leaves: 15.15 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of dry matter) and proline (975 nmoles
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of fresh matter) were also recorded by this pair, with the lowest Na
  <sup>+</sup> contents (Leaves: 1.93 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup>; Roots: 0.96 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of dry matter). For the 
  <em>Mongal</em> variety, at [NaCl 140 mM], the highest frequencies (50.36%), intensities (35.14%) and relative mycorrhizal dependencies (43.95%) were obtained thanks to inoculation with 
  <em>Rhizophagus fasciculatus</em>. The highest survival rates (59%) and aerial (2.58 g) and root (0.79 g) dry weights were also obtained with this symbiotic couple. The contents of K
  <sup>+</sup> (Leaves: 6.1 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup>; Roots: 3.09 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1 </sup>of dry matter), P (Leaves: 12.49 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of dry matter) and proline (942 nmoles
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of fresh matter) the most important and those in Na
  <sup>+</sup> the lowest (Leaves: 2.03 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup>; Roots: 1.53 mg
  &amp;sdot;
  g
  <sup style="white-space:normal;">-1</sup> of dry matter) were also recorded for this same pair. Thus, the best fungal partner for the 
  <em>Lady Nema</em> variety is 
  <em>C. etunicatum</em>, followed by 
  <em>F. mosseae </em>and 
  <em>R. fasciculatus</em>, while for the 
  <em>Mongal</em> variety it is 
  <em>R. fasciculatus</em>, followed by 
  <em>C. etunicatum</em> and 
  <em>F. mosseae</em>.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>&lt;i&gt;Solanum lycopersicum&lt;/i&gt;</kwd><kwd> Salt Stress</kwd><kwd> Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi</kwd><kwd> Growth</kwd><kwd> Phosphorus</kwd><kwd> Potassium</kwd><kwd> Sodium</kwd><kwd> Proline</kwd><kwd> Tolerance</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>One of the factors strongly limiting the development of plants in semi-arid zones is the process of land salinization. The impact of salinity is reflected in many plants that are not adapted or not very tolerant of a drop in their vegetative potential [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref1">1</xref>] . Salinity reduces plant growth, imposes ionic and osmotic effects and induces oxidative stress, which results in the disruption of hydromineral nutrition due to excess salts in the root zone [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref2">2</xref>] . Toxic effects also include disruption of the structure of enzymes and other macromolecules, damage to cell organelles and plasma membrane, disruption of photosynthesis, respiration and protein synthesis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref3">3</xref>] . In general, agricultural production in saline areas largely depends on the success of the germination and emergence phases of seedlings as well as the efficiency of the reproduction phase. Most crop plants are glycophytes and their responses to salinity appear to be species and variety specific within a species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref4">4</xref>] . However, previous studies have shown that inoculation of plants with selected beneficial soil microorganisms such as AMF could improve their tolerance to salinity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref5">5</xref>] . Indeed, several plant species, such as tomato (Solanumlycopersicum L.), have the ability to associate with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref6">6</xref>] . AMF are able to establish a symbiosis with nearly 80% of plants, most of which are agricultural and horticultural plants. Thanks to the development of a network of filaments, the symbiotic associations allow the plant to increase its contact surface with the soil, thus allowing a larger surface for prospecting the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] . The mineral elements are transmitted from the fungus to the plant in exchange for a transfer of carbon from the host plant to the fungus. This mutually beneficial symbiotic association of fungi with plant roots contributes to improving the use of water and nutrients, especially those with low mobility in the soil, and increases the tolerance of plants to various abiotic stresses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref5">5</xref>] . AMF, therefore, improve host physiological processes such as the water and mineral absorption capacity of plants by increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the roots and by favorably adjusting the osmotic balance and the composition of carbohydrates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref8">8</xref>] . Several authors have shown that exploiting the microbiological potential of soils, in particular that of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, could promote the adaptation of plants to saline environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] . Thus, several studies have shown a significant improvement in growth, water nutrition, root and aerial biomass of tomato plants inoculated with AMF and grown in saline conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref8">8</xref>] . Mycorrhization also improves the levels of phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium and proline (osmoregulator) in tomato plants under salt stress while decreasing those of sodium [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref9">9</xref>] . This is mainly regulated by the supply of nutrients to the root system and the increase in transport (uptake and/or translocation) by the AMF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref10">10</xref>] . Work carried out in the greenhouse on tomato varieties has shown a significant improvement in growth and mineral nutrition, root and aerial biomass thanks to inoculation with AMF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref11">11</xref>] . Mycorrhizal frequencies and intensities are also influenced by salt resulting in an increase in mycorrhizal dependency with increasing salt concentrations. The attenuation of salt stress by AMF would result from a combination of nutritional, biochemical and physiological effects [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>Thus, a better knowledge of the specific relationships between plants and mycorrhizal fungi is necessary for adequate and optimal use of these microsymbionts to increase the tolerance of plants to salinity. This study was undertaken, under semi-controlled conditions, to evaluate the beneficial or non-beneficial effects of mycorrhization with selected strains on the growth of plants of two tomato varieties (Solanumlycopersicum L.) subjected to increasing concentrations of NaCl [0, 70, 120 and 240 mM] based upon the screening results previously obtained [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] . These two varieties of tomato (Lady Nema and Mongal) were selected for this study because they appeared more tolerant to salinity during in vitro tests carried out on a selection of five varieties among the most cultivated in Senegal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] . This will allow identifying the best symbiotic couples to optimize tomato growth and productivity in Sahelian areas affected by saline stress.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Plant Material</title><p>The plant material (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) consists of seeds of the two best performing hybrid tomato varieties (Solanumlycopersicum L.) identified during work under in vitro conditions, namely the Lady Nema andMongal varieties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] . The seeds were supplied by the company Tropica Sem-Senegal (Technisem Novalliance Group, 2019), located in Dakar city. The characteristics of the seeds and the storage conditions are similar to those used during the in vitro study of salt stress [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Origins and characteristics of the tomato varieties (Tropica Sem, 2019)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Varieties</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Origin</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Characteristics</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lady Nema</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tropica Sem</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Adapted to the rainy and hot season, determined growth, good leaf cover, good yield, earliness of 75 - 80 days, good tolerance to nematodes, CMV (Cucumber Mosaic Virus), TYLCV (Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus), resistant to TMV (Tobacco Mosaic Virus) and Fusarium.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mongal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tropica Sem</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Adapted to therainy and hot season, determined growth, very good vigour, excellent fruit set, earliness (65 days), resistant to TMV (Tobacco Mosaic Virus), Fusarium and Meloidogyne spp.</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Fungal Material</title><p>To evaluate the impact of fungal inoculation on the growth and development of tomato plants under salt stress, three strains of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi were used. They come from the collection of the Joint Microbiology Laboratory (LCM, IRD/ISRA/UCAD**) of the ISRA-IRD research center in Dakar Bel-Air (Senegal). These are Claroideoglomus etunicatum,Rhizophagus fasciculatus and Funneliformis mosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref14">14</xref>] , whose old names were respectively Glomusetunicatum, Glomusfasciculatum and Glomus mosseae. The references of the strains are specified in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>.</p><p>To obtain enough inoculum, each pure AMF strain was propagated under a potted shadehouse using a mycotrophic plant, maize (Zeamays L.), in Sangalkam soil sterilized at 120˚C for 2 hrs. The composition and the physico-chemical characteristics of the Sangalkam soil are listed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. After 3 months of cultivation, the roots and the culture substrate were collected to evaluate the density of the spores on the one hand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref15">15</xref>] and, on the other hand, the root colonization rate for each AMF strain [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref17">17</xref>] . The maize roots colonized by each AMF strain were then cut into fragments of about 1 cm and mixed with the culture medium containing spores and hyphae, to constitute the fungal inoculum.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Culture Substrates</title><p>The soil taken from Sangalkam (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>), located 50 km from Dakar (approximate GPS position: Latitude, 14˚78'11&quot;N, Longitude, −17˚22'78&quot;W), served as a substrate for the greenhouse study of the effect of mycorrhizal fungi on the salt stress tolerance of tomato plants. The soil was taken three weeks before the experiments, from a horizon between 10 and 20 cm deep. It was sterilized in an oven at 120˚C for 96 hours to eliminate all native microflora.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Methods</title><sec id="s2_4_1"><title>2.4.1. Experimental Device and Culture Conditions</title><p>1) Experimental Device</p><p>The trial was conducted under shade at the Plant Biology Department (FST/ UCAD**).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> References of the strains of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from the LCM** collection (IRD/ISRA/UCAD**)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >References</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Abbreviations</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref14">14</xref>] NCBI:txid937382 (Becker and Gerdemann BEG 176)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C. etunicatum</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref14">14</xref>] NCBI:txid47032 (Thaxter sensu Gerdemann DAOM 227 130)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >R. fasciculatus</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref14">14</xref>] NCBI:txid27381 (Nicolson and Gerd.; Gerd. and Trappe DAOM 227 131)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >F. mosseae</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>**IRD: Institut de Recherch&#233; pour le D&#233;veloppement; ISRA: Institut S&#233;n&#233;galais de Recherches Agricoles; LCM: Laboratoire Commun de Microbiologie; UCAD: Universit&#233; Cheikh Anta Diop.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Physico-chemical characteristics of Sangalkam soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref18">18</xref>] </title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Component elements</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Content for 100 g of soil</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Silt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clay</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Organic material</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total carbon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.33</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH KCl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CE (&#181;s·cm<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >121.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.051</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pass (ppm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.244</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+</sup> (meq/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.465</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup> (meq/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.749</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fe<sup>2+</sup> (ppm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.251</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mn<sup>2+</sup> (ppm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cu<sup>2+</sup> (ppm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zn<sup>2+</sup> (ppm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C/N Ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03 ppm</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Magnesium total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30 ppm</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Na<sup>+</sup>: Sodium; K<sup>+</sup>: potassium; Fe<sup>2+</sup>: iron; Mn<sup>2+</sup>: manganese; Cu<sup>2+</sup>: copper; Zn<sup>2+</sup>: zinc; Pass: Available phosphorus.</p><p>The effects of inoculation with AMF strains were studied in the Lady Nema and Mongal varieties which appeared to be the most tolerant to salt stress following the test under in vitro conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>The adopted experimental set-up is a randomized block with 3 factors: inoculum, variety, and salt stress (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><p>- The inoculum factor has four levels: un-inoculated controls and plants inoculated with strains of Claroideoglomusetunicatum,Rhizophagus fasciculatus and Funneliformismosseae.</p><p>- The variety factor has two levels: Lady Nema and Mongal.</p><p>- The salt stress factor has four levels of [NaCl]: 0, 70, 140 and 210 mM [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>For each salt stress condition, a total of 15 plants/variety/inoculation condition was used, i.e., 480 plants. Plants were watered to field capacity every two days and maintained under these conditions for 2 weeks before applying each concentration of NaCl.</p><p>2) Culture Conditions</p><p>The containers consisted of black polyethylene bags (30 cm &#215; 13 cm) filled with 2 kg of substrate. The sowing of the seeds, initially soaked for 2 h, was done by sowing 2 seeds per bag. Thinning, consisting of leaving one plant per bag, was carried out after emergence, i.e., two weeks after sowing. The duration of the experiment, carried out entirely under semi-controlled conditions under shelter, was 3 months.</p><p>The inoculation was carried out at the time of sowing by providing 20 g of inoculum of the appropriate strain. The inoculum was characterized by a mycorrhization frequency of at least 85% and a spore density of approximately 40 for each fungal isolate. It was brought all around the seeds to a depth of 1 - 3 cm.</p><p>The experiments related to mycorrhization took place under shade from December 2020 to February 2021. The trial was conducted to allow good growth of the tomato plants (minimum and nocturnal thermal amplitudes of 21˚C to 24˚C and maximum and diurnal thermal amplitudes of 24˚C to 27˚C, respectively). No rainfall was recorded during the experiments.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_2"><title>2.4.2. Parameters Measured</title><p>1) Mycorrhization Parameters</p><p>At the end of the experiment, the plants were harvested and their roots were carefully cleared of the soil. The roots were thoroughly rinsed with water to remove adhering sand particles. Root colonization was observed after staining according to the technique developed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>The histological examination was carried out under an optical microscope at 100 magnification, by mounting between slide and coverslip, 20 fine fragments of roots approximately 1 cm long for each plant, selected at random. The fragments were crushed with a few drops of glycerol. The presence of AMF structures such as hyphae, vesicles and arbuscules in the roots makes it possible to estimate the level of colonization of the root samples.</p><p>The intensity and frequency of mycorrhization were then evaluated by the method of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>- The frequency of mycorrhization (F) was evaluated without considering the stage of extra- and intra-root development of the symbionts. Only the presence or absence of mycorrhizal propagules is counted. It was calculated by the following formula:</p><p>F ( % ) = [ number of mycorrhizal fragments / Total number of fragments ] ∗ 100 (1)</p><p>- Depending on the importance of colonization, a class is assigned to the root fragment and the intensity of mycorrhization is assessed as follows:</p><p>M ( % ) = [ 95 n 5 + 70 n 4 + 30 n 3 + 5 n 2 + n 1 ] / N (2)</p><p>n5, n4, n3, n2 and n1 designate respectively the numbers of fragments of class 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 and N is the number of fragments observed.</p><p>- Mycorrhizal dependency (MD) is defined by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref19">19</xref>] as the degree to which a plant is dependent on mycorrhizal status in order to grow and yield at maximum at a given level of soil fertility. Relative mycorrhizal dependence (RMD) expresses the degree to which a plant responds to mycorrhizal inoculation under fertile soil conditions. It was calculated using the method of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref20">20</xref>] according to the following formula:</p><p>RMD ( % ) = [ Total biomass of mycorrhizal plants − Total biomass of control plants Total biomass of mycorrhizal plants ] ∗ 100 (3)</p><p>2) Agro-Morphological Parameters</p><p>After 3 months of cultivation, the plants were carefully harvested from each polyethylene bag. Their roots were thoroughly rinsed with tap water to remove adhering sand particles. The agro-morphological parameters determined were the fresh and dry weights of the aerial and root parts. After separation of the aerial and root parts, their biomasses were determined with a Sartorius precision balance (accuracy: 0.0001). The different parts were then dried in an oven (Binder brand) for 120 h at a temperature of 80˚C &#177; 0.5˚C, before weighing the dry biomass of the aerial and root parts, respectively.</p><p>For each saline treatment and variety, the plant survival rate (PSR) was calculated as follows:</p><p>PSR ( % ) = [ Number of plants having survived / Total number of plants tested ] ∗ 100 (4)</p><p>This criterion was used to rank and classify tomato varieties according to their ability to tolerate salt stress.</p><p>3) Determination and Evaluation of Mineral Contents</p><p>- The determination of sodium (Na<sup>+</sup>) and potassium (K<sup>+</sup>) was carried out according to the method used by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref21">21</xref>] . The fresh samples were rinsed three times with distilled water and dried in an oven at 70˚C for 48 h. After grinding the samples, 0.2 g of dry matter was incinerated in an oven at 500˚C for 6h. The ashes were collected and diluated into HCl. Thanks to an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (BK-AA320N, precision: &#177;0.5 nm), the Na<sup>+</sup> and K<sup>+</sup> contents were determined, respectively at ƛ = 589 nm and ƛ = 766 nm.</p><p>- The phosphorus (P) content was determined using Sodium Molybdate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref22">22</xref>] . A 0.25 mL aliquot of the samples was used for the determination of Na<sup>+</sup> and K<sup>+</sup>. It was added to 1.25 mL of Sodium Molybdate reagent (2.5%) and Hydrazine Sulphate (0.15%), and 1 mL of distilled water, then boiled for 10 min. Subsequently, the samples were cooled before reading the optical density with a spectrophotometer at ƛ = 820 nm (Shimadzu UV-1700, precision: &#177;0.3 nm).</p><p>- To assess the effectiveness of AMF in mineral nutrition by improving the absorption of potassium to the detriment of sodium, the foliar and root K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> selectivity ratio (R) was calculated according to the following formula [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref23">23</xref>] :</p><p>R = K +   content / Na +   content (5)</p><p>4) Biochemical Parameters: Determination and Evaluation of Proline Contents</p><p>To assess the NaCl tolerance levels of the two tomato varieties, the average proline contents accumulated by the plants were determined. The protocol described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref24">24</xref>] was used to extract and assay the proline. The extraction was carried out from a composite mixture of 100 mg of leaf segments from three plants per treatment. The concentration of proline was determined with a spectrophotometer (Evolution 300 UV-VIS, accuracy: &#177;0.15 nm) by measuring the optical density (OD) at ƛ = 520 nm. The proline contents were calculated and determined by the equation deduced from the calibration curve i.e., standard calibration curve, constructed from a range of known and increasing proline concentrations from 0 to 800 μmoles.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_3"><title>2.4.3. Statistical Processing and Data Analysis</title><p>The collected data were subjected to a multiple comparison of the means and to an analysis of variance with three factors (inoculum &#215; variety &#215; [NaCl]) by the Student-Newman-Keuls test (SNK). The analyses were carried out according to a general linear model by the R-4.0.5 software using the “Agricoleae” package. The differences between the means were compared using the Student-Newman and Keuls test, and the significance was determined at 95% confidence limits, i.e., the significantly different means were discriminated by the SNK test at the p-value of 5%.</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Influence of Salt Stress on Plant Mycorrhization Parameters</title><sec id="s3_1_1"><title>3.1.1. Effect of Increasing [NaCl] on the Frequency of Mycorrhization</title><p>The results of the statistical analyzes relating to the impact of increasing NaCl concentrations and AMF strains on the frequency of mycorrhization of the plants revealed a strong significance of the interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety (F = 162.17; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>). Indeed, the frequency of mycorrhization of plants varies significantly with the increase in NaCl concentration (Lady Nema: F = 1749; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 3125; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Un-inoculated plants revealed no root colonization by AMF hyphae.</p><p>For plants of the Lady Nema variety, the rates of decrease in the frequency of mycorrhization at [NaCl 210 mM] vary from 86% (C.etunicatum) to 91% (R.fasciculatus) while for those of the Mongal variety, they vary from 88% (R.fasciculatus) to 92% (C.etunicatum and F.mosseae). However, a slight increase in the frequency of mycorrhization of 1% (C.etunicatum) and 2% (R.fasciculatus) is noted with the plants of the Mongal variety at [NaCl 70 mM]. The frequencies of mycorrhization of plants of the Lady Nema variety are slightly higher than those of the plants of the Mongal variety, with respectively the most efficient strain of AMF. Indeed, plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum recorded mycorrhization frequencies of 94.03%, 94.01%, 54.01% and 13.05%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Under the same salinity conditions, plants of the Mongal variety inoculated with the R.fasciculatus strain recorded mycorrhization frequencies of 90.24%, 91.69%, 50.36% and 10.86%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_2"><title>3.1.2. Effect of Increasing [NaCl] on the Intensity of Mycorrhization</title><p>A strong significance of the interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety (F = 64.694; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) emerged during the statistical analyzes concerning the impact of increasing NaCl concentrations and AMF strains on the intensity of mycorrhization of the plants. Indeed, the intensity of mycorrhization of the plants varies significantly with the increase in NaCl concentration (Lady Nema: F = 944.1; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 1025; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10 <sup>−16</sup>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>The mycorrhization intensity of plants decreases significantly with increasing NaCl concentrations. However, an exception is noted with the couple Lady Nema/C.etunicatum which recorded an increase of 2% in the presence of [NaCl 70 mM]. In the Lady Nema variety, the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum recorded the highest mycorrhization intensities with 39.59%, 40.47%, 21.33% and</p><p>9.92%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Under the same salinity conditions, the plants inoculated with the R.fasciculatus strain recorded the lowest intensities of mycorrhization (30.1%, 26.69%, 10.39% and 5.23%).</p><p>Regarding the Mongal variety, the plants inoculated with F.mosseae recorded the highest mycorrhization intensities, with 35.82%, 35.14%, 14.86% and 5.71%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM NaCl]. Plants inoculated with F.mosseae recorded the lowest intensities of mycorrhization under these same salinity conditions, with 28.11%, 25.65%, 9.3% and 2%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_3"><title>3.1.3. Effect of Increasing [NaCl] on Relative Mycorrhizal Dependency</title><p>The variance analysis of the mycorrhizal dependency of the plants revealed a highly significant effect of the interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety (F = 22.7; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>). Indeed, relative mycorrhizal dependency varies significantly with increasing salt stress (Lady Nema: F = 322.42 and P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 314.76 and P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>).</p><p>The mycorrhizal dependencies recorded with the AMF strains revealed positive and negative values relating to biomass gains or losses in the mycorrhizal tomato plants. Without saline constraint, the relative mycorrhizal dependencies of the plants to all the AMF strains are negative. The maximum dependency is observed at [NaCl 140 mM] in the plants of the Mongalvariety inoculated with R.fasciculatus (43.95%), followed by that of the plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with F.mosseae (35.62%). In addition, plants of the Mongalvariety, inoculated with F.mosseae, recorded the lowest dependency value (−131%). Plants of the Lady Nema variety, inoculated with R.fasciculatus, were the least dependent on mycorrhization with dependencies of −48.05%, 3.48%, −43.09% and −42.17%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl].</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Influence of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Agro-Morphological Parameters of Plants Grown under Salt Stress</title><sec id="s3_2_1"><title>3.2.1. Effect of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Survival Rate of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>The statistical analyzes revealed a significant [NaCl] &#215; AMF Strain &#215; Variety interaction (F = 1.896; P = 1.02 &#215; 10<sup>−2</sup>). Indeed, the survival rate of plants, inoculated or not, decreased significantly with the increase in NaCl concentrations (Lady Nema: F = 30.95; P = 2.51 &#215; 10<sup>−13</sup>; Mongal: F = 61.07; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>).</p><p>However, the variation in the decrease of the survival rates is not very different from one variety to another. Indeed, the smallest decrease (59%) is recorded at the level of plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum and at the level of those of the Mongal variety inoculated with R.fasciculatus. Moreover, the greatest decrease is recorded with the control plants (91%) of the two varieties and those inoculated with F.mosseae (Lady Nema = 68% and Mongal =</p><p>64%). An improvement in survival rates compared to controls was noted thanks to mycorrhization. Indeed, at the level of the Lady Nema variety, improvements of 26%, 37% and 40% were recorded, respectively with the inoculation of F.mosseae, R.fasciculatus and C.etunicatum. Regarding the Mongal variety, the improvements observed are 27%, 39% and 43%, respectively with F.mosseae,C.etunicatum and R.fasciculatus. Thus, with regard to the Lady Nema variety, the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum recorded the highest survival rates with 100%, 67%, 55% and 41%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Regarding the Mongal variety, the plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus recorded the best survival rates with 100%, 69%, 59% and 41%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl].</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_2"><title>3.2.2. Effect of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Fresh and Dry Weight of the Aerial and Root Parts of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>The analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety concerning the fresh and dry weights of the aerial part (Fresh weight: F = 34.02; P = 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Dry weight: F = 4.223; P = 2.55 &#215; 10<sup>−4</sup>), those of the root part (Fresh weight: F = 10.602; P = 7.46 &#215; 10<sup>−10</sup>; Dry weight: F = 2.712; P = 9.67 &#215; 10<sup>−3</sup>) and as well as those of the total dry weight of the plants (F = 4.653; P = 9.35 &#215; 10<sup>−5</sup>). These weights varied significantly with increasing NaCl concentrations for the two varieties (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>Salt stress significantly decreased dry weights. However, improvements of 99% at [NaCl 70 mM] and 6% at [NaCl 140 mM] in root dry weight of plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum were observed. Inoculation with R.fasciculatus resulted in a 123% improvement in this weight. Regarding the Mongal variety, a 69% improvement in root dry weight is observed at [NaCl 70 mM] for plants inoculated with C.etunicatum. The greatest weights are obtained by inoculation with C.etunicatum for plants of the Lady Nema variety and with R.fasciculatus for those of the Mongal variety. Aerial dry weights were greater than root dry weights under all conditions for both varieties. In addition,</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of the means of the fresh and dry weights of the aerial and root parts of the plants as a function of the NaCl concentrations and of the AMF strains in the Lady Nema and Mongal varieties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Varieties</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >AMF Strains</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >[NaCl] (mM)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >AFW (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RFW (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >ADW (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RDW (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDW (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >(ADW/ TDW) &#215; 100</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >(RDW/TDW) &#215; 100</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >red/inc Rate ADW (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >red/inc Rate RDW (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="16"  >Lady Nema</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.11a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.41b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.62a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.32a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.02b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.96b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.36b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.03c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.50b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.53c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.12c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.61d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.88a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.82b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.08a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.52a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.20a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.97b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+123</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.70c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.42c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.39d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.52a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.10a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.59a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.22a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.80a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.10a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.20b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.69a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.68ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.37a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.56b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.75b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.42bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.16b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.35c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.40c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.80a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.34a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.21a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.91a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.65b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.05b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.81b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.86b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.72b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.40b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.41c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.04b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.48c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−76</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="16"  >Mongal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.91a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.42b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.12a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.95a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.45b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.40a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.94a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.41a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.34a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.46c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.70c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.66a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.57c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.23b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.61c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.04a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.79a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.57a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.61b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.55bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.03bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.59c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.57c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.94ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.58b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.37bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.54d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.54c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.86d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.69a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.92a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.96a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.13a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.10a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.66b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.33a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.42a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.51b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.54c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.64b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.12d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.08b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.53d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.44a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.39a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.19a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.64a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.70b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.70b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.56b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.01c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.11bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.89c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.29d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−73</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi; AFW: Aerial Fresh Weight, ADW: Aerial Dry Weight, RFW: Root Fresh Weight, RDW: Root Dry Weight, TDW: Total Dry Weight; red: reduction; inc: increase. For each variety, the values on the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Student-Newman-Keuls test at the 5% threshold.</p><p>inoculated plants recorded the highest weights compared to un-inoculated controls.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Influence of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Mineral Element and Proline Contents of Plants Grown under Salt Stress</title><sec id="s3_3_1"><title>3.3.1. Effect of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Mineral Element Content of the Leaves of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>The analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of the interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety concerning the contents of Potassium (F = 74.46; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>), Sodium (F = 90.55; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) and Phosphorus (F = 30.56; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>). In fact, under all inoculation conditions, the leaf potassium and phosphorus contents of the plants of the two varieties decreased significantly with the increase in NaCl concentration, while those of sodium increased significantly (P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). In addition, the K<sup>+</sup> and P contents were higher for the inoculated plants compared to the non-inoculated controls. However, the opposite was noted with respect to Na<sup>+</sup> contents.</p><p>At [NaCl 210 mM], the potassium content decreased by more than 83% in plants of the Mongalvariety inoculated with F.mosseae while the smallest decrease was obtained with the plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum (67%). The sodium and phosphorus contents were higher for the plants of the Mongalvariety inoculated with C.etunicatum (Na<sup>+</sup>: 2213%; P: 85%), whereas they were lower for the plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with the same strain (Na<sup>+</sup>: 1666%; P: 68%). Thus, for the Lady Nema variety, the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum recorded the highest potassium contents with 12.59, 12.7, 7.5 and 4.18 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter and phosphorus with 29.85, 23.86, 15.17 and 9.6 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter as well as the lowest sodium contents with 0.16, 1.08, 1.93 and 2.77 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. For the Mongal variety, the plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus recorded the highest potassium content with 11.09, 9.04, 6.10 and 2.45 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter and phosphorus with 25.47, 18.70, 12.49 and 9.51 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter as well as the lowest sodium contents with 0.15, 1.23, 2.03 and 3.04 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl].</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_2"><title>3.3.2. Effect of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Mineral Element Content of the Roots of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>The statistical analyzes of the root K<sup>+</sup> and Na<sup>+</sup> contents as a function of increasing NaCl concentrations and AMF strains revealed a significant interaction [NaCl] &#215; AMF strain &#215; Variety (K<sup>+</sup>: F = 5.437; P = 48 &#215; 10<sup>−3</sup>; Na<sup>+</sup>: F = 29.83; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>). Indeed, independently of the AMF strains, the K<sup>+</sup> content decreased with salinity (Lady Nema: F = 109.434; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 4.463; P = 5 &#215; 10<sup>−3</sup>) while that of Na<sup>+</sup> increased (Lady Nema: F = 37.396; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 38.127; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). The best results were obtained with inoculated plants compared to non-inoculated control ones.</p><p>At [NaCl 210 mM], the greatest rate of decrease in K<sup>+</sup> content was obtained</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of mycorrhizal inoculation on foliar K<sup>+</sup>, Na<sup>+</sup> and P levels in plants of Lady Nema and Mongal varieties grown under increasing NaCl concentrations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >AMF Strains</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >[NaCl] (mM)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Lady Nema</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Mongal</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+</sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate K<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate Na<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate P</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+ </sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+</sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate K<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate Na<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/ Inc Rate P</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.59a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.85a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.43a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.46a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.7a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.08c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.86b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+586</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.04b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.53c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.91b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+638</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.17c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.27b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.39c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1481</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.18c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.77a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1666</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.30d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.79a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.12d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+2213</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.30a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.86a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.47a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.57a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.14b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+722</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.04b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.7b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+720</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.46b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.24b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.17c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1219</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.03b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.49c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1253</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.81c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.32a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.68d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1851</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.45d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.04a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.51d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1927</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.09a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.33a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.17a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.09c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.56b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+583</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.24b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.92c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.86b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+723</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−33</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.23c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.99b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.08c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1146</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.43c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1232</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.36d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.02a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.01d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1788</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.02d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+2046</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.36a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.18a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.08a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2d5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.22a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.79b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.25c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.47b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+546</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.81b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.99b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+733</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−35</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.92c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.2c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1197</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.11c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.31b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.53c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+1625</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.30a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.21d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+2130</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.48d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.92a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.69d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+2267</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−78</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi; K<sup>+</sup>: Potassium; Na<sup>+</sup>: Sodium; P: Phosphorus; Red: Reduction; Inc: Increase. For each AMF strain, the values on the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Student-Newman-Keuls test at the 5% threshold.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of mycorrhizal inoculation on root K<sup>+</sup> and Na<sup>+</sup> levels in plants of Lady Nema and Mongal varieties grown under increasing NaCl concentrations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >AMF Strains</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >[NaCl] (mM)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Lady Nema</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Mongal</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+ </sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+ </sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/Incr Rate K<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/Inc Rate Na<sup>+ </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+ </sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na<sup>+ </sup> (mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/Inc Rate K<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Red/Inc Rate Na<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.03a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.26a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.56a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.55a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+716</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.96a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+747</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.40b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+404</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.88a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+723</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.54c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+446</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+511</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.51a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.33a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.28b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.21a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+750</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.39b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+740</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.04c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+773</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.53b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+539</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.87d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+821</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.55d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+317</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.93a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.34a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.54b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+399</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.10b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+667</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.13c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+401</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+643</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.99a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+403</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.56ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+556</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.39a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.48a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.38a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+283</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.89b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.84a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+540</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.55a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.29a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+615</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.68a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.65a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >+675</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi; K<sup>+</sup>: Potassium; Na<sup>+</sup>: Sodium; Red: Reduction; Inc: Increase. For each AMF strain, the values on the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Student-Newman-Keuls test at the 5% threshold.</p><p>with the plants of the Mongal variety inoculated with C.etunicatum (94%) while the lowest was obtained for the plants of the Lady Nema variety (75%) inoculated with the same strain. Thus, the highest K<sup>+</sup> contents were recorded in plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum with 10.03, 9.56, 4.40 and 2.54 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Under these same salinity conditions, for the Mongal variety, the highest K<sup>+</sup> contents were recorded in plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus, with 9.33, 7.39, 3.09 and 1.55 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter.</p><p>At [NaCl 210 mM], for the Lady Nema variety, plants inoculated with F.mosseae revealed the lowest increase in Na<sup>+</sup> content (403%). In contrast, for the Mongalvariety, inoculation with R.fasciculatus gave the lowest increase in Na<sup>+</sup> content (317%). Thus, for the Lady Nema variety, the lowest Na<sup>+</sup> contents were recorded on the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum, i.e., 0.19, 1.55, 0.96 and 1.04 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Under these same salinity conditions, the lowest Na<sup>+</sup> contents, for the Mongal variety, were recorded with the inoculation of R.fasciculatus (0.24, 2.02, 1.53 and 1 mg·g<sup>−1</sup> of dry matter).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_3"><title>3.3.3. Evolution of the K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> Selectivity Ratio in the Leaves and Roots of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>Increasing NaCl concentrations negatively impacted the K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> selectivity ratio with drastic decrease rates (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). This ratio is greater at the level of the leaves compared to the roots. However, at [140 and 210 mM of NaCl], this ratio was greater at the level of the roots of plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum. For the Mongal variety, this ratio was in favor of the roots in plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus at [NaCl 210 mM l]. For the Lady Nema variety, the highest selectivity ratios were recorded in plants inoculated with C.etunicatum (Leaves: 80.17, 11.79, 3.88 and 1.51; Roots: 52.77, 6, 17, 4.60 and 2.45 respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]). However, at [NaCl 210 mM], the rate of decrease in this ratio at the leaf level was between 98.12% (C.etunicatum)</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> ratio in leaves and roots as a function of NaCl concentration and AMF strains in plants of Lady Nema and Mongalvarieties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >AMF Strains</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >[NaCl] (mM)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Lady Nema</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Mongal</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Roots</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Roots</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+ </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Claroideoglomus etunicatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Rhizophagus fasciculatus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.67</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Funneliformis mosseae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi; K<sup>+</sup>: Potassium; Na<sup>+</sup>: Sodium.</p><p>and 99.45% (control). On the other hand, at the root level, it was between 95.36% (C.etunicatum) and 98.54% (R.fasciculatus).</p><p>For the Mongal variety, the highest selectivity ratios were obtained from plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus (Leaves: 73.91, 7.35, 3 and 0.81; Roots: 38.88, 3.67, 2.02 and 1.55 respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]). The reduction rate of this ratio at the level of the leaves at [NaCl 210 mM] was between 98.91% (R.fasciculatus) and 99.60% (control) while at the level of the roots, it was between 96.02% (R.fasciculatus) and 99.56% (control).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_4"><title>3.3.4. Influence of Mycorrhizal Inoculation on the Proline Contents of Plants Grown under Increasing [NaCl]</title><p>The analysis of variance of the effect of mycorrhization on the proline content, determined at the level of the aerial part of the plants subjected to increasing concentrations of NaCl, revealed that the interaction [NaCl] &#215; Strain of AMF &#215; Variety is very significant (F = 3.134; P = 3.46 &#215; 10<sup>−4</sup>; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>). Indeed, the proline content of the plants increased significantly at all inoculation conditions with the increase in NaCl concentration (Lady Nema: F = 499; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mongal: F = 324, 1; P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>).</p><p>Regarding the Lady Nema variety, this increase was more significant in plants inoculated with C.etunicatum (131%) while it was lower in plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus (113%). For the Mongal variety, the highest increase was obtained with the inoculation of R.fasciculatus (132%) and the lowest with the inoculation of F.mosseae (114%). However, the inoculated plants recorded higher proline contents than the controls. Thus, the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum obtained the best proline contents with 537, 779, 975 and 1300 nmoles·g<sup>−1</sup> of fresh matter, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl] for the plants of the Lady Nema variety. Under the same salinity conditions, for the Mongal variety, the best proline contents were obtained on plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus, with 550, 770, 942 and 1275 nmoles·g<sup>−1</sup> of fresh material. Plants of the Lady Nema variety recorded higher proline contents than those of the Mongal variety.</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Influence of Mycorrhization on Tomato Plants Subjected to Salt Stress</title><p>In semi-arid regions, mycorrhizal symbiosis plays a major role in the development of crops and their tolerance to abiotic stresses, particularly for tomatoes. AMF have been associated with a wide range of plants and different soil salinity levels [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] . Indeed, AMF have the ability to associate with the roots of plants, thereby improving their hydromineral nutrition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref10">10</xref>] . There are two ways of root colonization of a plant by an AMF. Primary colonization from pre-symbiotic fungal hyphae from a spore and secondary colonization from the extra-root mycelium of a fungus that has already colonized the root system of a host plant. Once the hyphae are in the root cells, they differentiate into highly branched arbuscules occupying most of the cell volume and forming an extensive surface for nutrient exchanges [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref25">25</xref>] . They also grow out of the root forming a branching mycelium that explores the soil for the absorption of mineral nutrients and water. However, high salt levels in soil can reduce the colonization capacity and germination of AMF spores [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>According to the present study, the frequencies and intensities of mycorrhization, as well as the relative mycorrhizal dependency varied significantly (P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) with increasing NaCl concentrations. The decrease in the frequency of mycorrhization varies from 86% to 92% and that of the intensity of mycorrhization from 75% to 93% at [NaCl 210 mM]. A decrease in root infection by AMF of 51% was recorded in tomatoes grown under saline conditions (7500 ppm) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref8">8</xref>] . Plants inoculated with C.etunicatum andR.fasciculatus revealed the best frequencies and intensities of mycorrhization in Lady Nema andMongal varieties, respectively. These mycorrhization parameters are more considerable with the plants of the Lady Nema variety compared to those of the Mongal variety. Indeed, plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum recorded mycorrhization frequencies of 94.03%, 94.01%, 54.01% and 13.05% and those of the Mongal variety inoculated with the R.fasciculatus strain recorded 90.24%, 91.69%, 50.36% and 10.86%, respectively at [0, 70, 140 and 210 mM of NaCl]. Plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum also recorded the best mycorrhization intensities with 39.59%, 40.47%, 21.33% and 9.92% while those of the Mongal variety inoculated with the R.fasciculatus strain obtained mycorrhization intensities of 35.82%, 35.14%, 14.86% and 5.71% in the same saline conditions. However, a lower reduction of 14% and 27% in the frequency of mycorrhization in tomato inoculated with F.mosseae, is noted respectively under medium (4.7 dS·m<sup>−1</sup>) and high salt stress (7.4 dS·m<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref10">10</xref>] . Small reductions in the frequency of mycorrhization (Funneliformismosseae) of 24.6% and 21.9% at 4.9 dS·m<sup>−1</sup> and 35% and 41% at 7.1 dS·m<sup>−1</sup> were obtained, respectively in two tomato varieties Pello (tolerant) and Marriha(susceptible) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref6">6</xref>] . Mycorrhization frequencies twice lower than those recorded in our study (control: 55% and at [NaCl 100 mM]: 27%) were also observed in tomato plants inoculated with Funneliformismosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref11">11</xref>] . Degrees of relative mycorrhizal dependency are classified as follows: excessive (RMD &gt; 75%), high (50 &lt; RMD &lt; 75%), medium (25 &lt; RMD &lt; 50%), marginal (RMD &lt; 25%), and independent (RMD ≤ 0%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref26">26</xref>] . The mycorrhizal dependencies recorded in our experiments show positive and negative values relating to biomass gains or losses in mycorrhizal plants. However, without saline constraint, the dependencies are all negative at all inoculation conditions, i.e., the plants are independent of mycorrhization. In addition, the maximum dependency is observed at [NaC140 mM l] in plants of the Mongalvariety inoculated with R.fasciculatus (43.95%), followed by those of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with F.mosseae (35.62%). Thus, in the presence of saline constraint, the RMD is accentuated because the plants of the two varieties need more and more to associate with the AMF which results in an average dependency. However, plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with R.fasciculatus at [140 and 210 mM of NaCl] recorded RMDs of −43.09% and −42.17%, respectively. In addition, those inoculated with F.mosseae at [NaCl 210 mM] also recorded a RMD of −6.21%. Thus, with these RMD less than 0, these plants always remain indifferent to mycorrhization. In the Mongal variety, plants inoculated with F.mosseae at [NaCl 210 mM] are also indifferent to mycorrhization with a RMD of −131.25%. Mycorrhizal dependency (MD) expresses the contribution of AMF in stimulating plant growth compared to the same non-mycorrhizal plants. Mycotrophic plants such as tomato have a coarse root system which determines their reliance on symbiosis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref12">12</xref>] . Some species such as carrot and onion have a strong mycorrhizal dependency, while others such as sorghum and maize have an intermediate mycorrhizal dependency. Finally, a last category including wheat, rice and tomato show a low dependency on mycorrhizal colonization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref27">27</xref>] . This is in contradiction with our results which revealed an intermediate mycorrhizal dependency of the tomato varieties studied. For a given soil and plant, there is a maximum quantity of extractable phosphorus above which the response of the plant to mycorrhization is zero, at least as far as plant growth is concerned [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref28">28</xref>] . Several factors can influence the MD of the plants, including the plant species used, the structure of the root system, the fungal symbiont and the content of the soil in assimilable phosphorus. Under unfavorable mineral nutrition conditions, the two partners in the symbiosis can compete for carbonaceous substrates, resulting in a depressive effect of the fungus on the juvenile growth of plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>The plant factors that are at the origin of the differences observed in the aptitude for endomycorrhizal colonization seem to be linked to the morphological and physiological characteristics of the plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref12">12</xref>] . Our results showed that tomato still had the ability to establish symbiotic relationships with AMF even under high saline concentration. A similar conclusion was made by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref29">29</xref>] . Several authors have also shown that salinity reduces mycorrhizal colonization by inhibiting spore germination and hyphal growth or by reducing the spread of mycorrhizal colonization and the number of arbuscules [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref30">30</xref>] . The negative effect of soil salinity on mycorrhizal root infection could also be due to the accumulation of H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> in the roots of mycorrhizal plants, which could induce the degradation of arbuscules [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref31">31</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Influence of Mycorrhization on the Agro-Morphological Parameters of Tomato Plants Subjected to Salt Stress</title><p>The direct effects of soil salinity on plant growth may involve three distinct physiological pathways: firstly, plants subject to the low osmotic potentials of saline soil are at risk of physiological drought because they must maintain lower internal osmotic potentials to prevent water movement from roots to soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref3">3</xref>] . Secondly, the toxic effects of specific ions such as Na<sup>+</sup> and Cl<sup>−</sup>, disseminated in saline soils, disrupt the structure of enzymes and therefore their function, damage cellular organelles and disrupt photosynthesis, respiration and protein synthesis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref32">32</xref>] . Finally, salinity also leads to a nutrient imbalance in the plant caused by a change in the absorption and/or transport of nutrients to the aerial part, which leads to ionic deficiencies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref33">33</xref>] . The application of AMF could improve the physico-chemical and biological characteristics of the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref34">34</xref>] . Furthermore, the spread of AMF hyphae beyond the root zone provides the nutrients necessary for plant development [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref25">25</xref>] . Thus, several studies have demonstrated that several species of AMF are involved in promoting plant resistance to salinity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref31">31</xref>] . Our results revealed a significant decrease (P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) in survival rates which increases with high NaCl levels and treatment duration with better results in inoculated plants compared to controls. Several authors have reported that inoculated plants grow better than un-inoculated ones under salt stress [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref32">32</xref>] . Thus, the survival rate of the plants in this study is greater (&gt;40%) on the plants inoculated with C.etunicatum for theLady Nema variety and R.fasciculatus for the Mongal variety. A one hundred percent survival rate is obtained in a variety of tomato inoculated with F.mosseae in a salt stress situation (ECse = 7 dS·m<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref29">29</xref>] . The effects of salinity observed would result from a disturbance of the water and nutrient supply as well as toxicity following a strong accumulation of salt in the leaves [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref35">35</xref>] . Indeed, following an increase in the osmotic potential in the culture substrate, the cell turgor would be based on the accumulation of ions in the vacuole, which alters the cell organelles causing the appearance of leaf necrosis and, finally, the death of the cell plant. To adapt to salt stress, the plant can avoid damage by reducing growth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref33">33</xref>] ; this is the most common effect of abiotic stresses on plant physiology. Indeed, this delay in development allows the plant to accumulate energy and resources to combat stress before the imbalance between the interior and exterior of the organism increases to a threshold where the damage will be irreversible [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref35">35</xref>] . Plant protection by mycorrhization against salt stress has also been reported to result from increased and/or better selection in nutrient uptake, accumulation of osmoregulatory compounds, high stomatal conductance, an increase in photosynthetic activity or even a limitation of leaf dehydration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref33">33</xref>] .</p><p>The negative impact of salinity on plant development is reflected in the fresh and dry weight of plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref30">30</xref>] . Thus, in the present study, a clear and significant decrease in the fresh and dry weight of the aerial and root parts is observed with the increase in NaCl content. However, the inoculated plants showed better development compared to the non-inoculated ones. Indeed, an increase in fresh root weight is observed at [NaCl 70 mM] varieties for plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus (76% for Lady Nema) and C.etunicatum (48% and 41% respectively for Lady Nema andMongal varieties. At [NaCl 70 mM], the dry weight of plants of the Lady Nema variety increased by 99% (C.etunicatum) and 123% (R.fasciculatus) while that of the plants of the Mongal variety increased by 99% (C.etunicatum). Similar results under saline conditions were obtained in tomato plants inoculated with F.mosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref36">36</xref>] and with different AMF strains including R.fasciculatus and F.mosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref29">29</xref>] . Several other authors have reported the beneficial effect of AMF on the dry weight of plants under osmotic and ionic stress conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref30">30</xref>] . Maintaining water homeostasis is essential to mitigate the impact of salinity on plant growth and crop production. Under stress conditions, inoculation with AMF often improves the water status of plants due to the presence of extra root hyphae which absorb more water. AMF colonization increases active solute transport as a mechanism that allows water to continue to flow through plant roots [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] . However, a reduction in the aerial dry weight of 62% to 83% and in the root dry weight of 50% to 58% in the presence of [NaCl 210 mM] is observed on the mycorrhizal plants of the Lady Nema variety compared to non-stressed plants. With regard to the Mongal variety, the reduction in aerial dry weight varies between 46% and 90% and that of root dry weight between 58% and 79%, always in the presence of [NaCl 210 mM]. Reductions in aerial (50%) and root (60%) dry weights were observed in tomatoes under salt stress conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref38">38</xref>] . However, the aerial dry weights are greater than those of the roots in all conditions for both varieties, which suggest that the AMF would promote better development of the aerial part versus the root part and that salinity has a greater impact on this root part which is the part in direct contact with harmful ions. Reduced plant growth under saline stress is attributed to reduced water and nutrient availability due to excessive NaCl levels in the growth medium, but also by imbalance and specific ion toxicity leading to down-regulation of other metabolic activities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref39">39</xref>] . The reduction in biomass can be caused by several modifications, the main ones being: 1) reduction in the thickness of the epidermis, mesophyll, intercellular spaces and reduction in cell size [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref40">40</xref>] ; 2) reduction in the number of chloroplasts, leaf area, and stomatal density [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref41">41</xref>] ; 3) structural damage to cell walls, dilation and reduction in the number of mitochondrial ridges; 4) damage caused by stress-induced increase in ethylene [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref42">42</xref>] . It may also be due to ionic toxicity caused by the accumulation of Na<sup>+</sup> and Cl<sup>−</sup> ions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref32">32</xref>] . The heterogeneity of the results with the different AMF strains could be explained by the fact that the AMF diverge functionally [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref15">15</xref>] ; different species show heterogeneity in performance in hyphal growth, fungal uptake and symbiotic nutrient transport [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref5">5</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Influence of Mycorrhization on the Mineral Element Contents of Tomato Plants Subjected to Salt Stress</title><p>The effectiveness of a plant in controlling the consumption, distribution and compartmentalization of Na<sup>+</sup> is decisive for its tolerance to salinity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref4">4</xref>] . Soil salinity significantly reduces the concentration of beneficial elements making it difficult for nutrients such as P and K<sup>+</sup> to be absorbed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref39">39</xref>] . This leads to nutritional disorders that AMF could improve [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] .</p><p>Under our experimental conditions, the mineral nutrition of tomato plants was found to be dependent on the variety, the strain of mycorrhizal fungus inoculated and also on the level of salinity applied. Indeed, with regard to the two varieties tested, the foliar contents of potassium and phosphorus decreased with salinity while that of sodium increased. Similar results were obtained on several tomato genotypes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref38">38</xref>] . At the root level, the K<sup>+</sup> content decreased with salinity while the Na<sup>+</sup> content increased significantly. The inoculated plants garner higher K<sup>+</sup> and P contents than those recorded on the non-inoculated plants. In addition, Na<sup>+</sup> contents are higher in non-inoculated plants. Numerous studies have indicated that AMF contribute to plant growth via enhancing the uptake of mineral nutrients, especially immobile (P) ones from the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] . This may be due to increased availability and/or transport (absorption/translocation) of these minerals by AMF hyphae. Mycorrhizal fungi have a regulatory effect on the translocation of Na<sup>+</sup> at the level of the aerial part, which makes it possible to maintain a lower Na<sup>+</sup> aerial part/root part ratio in the tissues of inoculated plants than in the tissues of non-inoculated ones [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] . Regarding the potassium contents, they decreased by more than 65% at [NaCl 210 mM] for the Lady Nema and Mongal varieties. The best results are obtained with the inoculation of C.etunicatum in the plants of the Lady Nema variety, followed by the inoculation with R.fasciculatus in the plants of the Mongal variety. Tomato plants inoculated with Glomusintraradices (Rhizophagusintraradices) obtained a 90% reduction in K<sup>+</sup> levels [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref2">2</xref>] . These results are similar to the values obtained in our work. However, the increase in Na<sup>+</sup> contents (200%) is far lower than that obtained in our work. As for mycorrhizal tomato plants with F.mosseae and grown under saline stress, a greater drop in phosphorus and potassium levels (+86%) was recorded [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref6">6</xref>] . However, the increase in sodium of those (155% to 249%) is far less significant than that obtained in our experiments. We noted a positive correlation between leaf potassium and phosphorus contents, but also a negative correlation between potassium, phosphorus, and sodium contents. Similar results were obtained in tomato plants mycorrhized with F.mosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref10">10</xref>] . At the root level, a high K<sup>+</sup> content is accompanied by a low Na<sup>+</sup> content and vice versa. Similar results in a salinity situation were also reported for tomato plants inoculated with R.intraradices [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref2">2</xref>] . Increasing NaCl concentrations also negatively impacted the K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> selectivity ratio with drastic decrease rates. However, this ratio is greater at the level of the leaves compared to the roots. Meanwhile, at [140 and 210 mM of NaCl], this ratio is greater at the level of the roots of plants of the Lady Nema variety inoculated with C.etunicatum. For the Mongal variety, this ratio is in favor of the roots for the plants inoculated with R.fasciculatus at [NaCl 210 mM]. This testifies to the respective effects of these AMF in mineral nutrition by promoting significant absorption of K<sup>+</sup>. Therefore, higher values of these ratios protect photosynthetic tissues by suppressing Na<sup>+</sup> influx and improving hydraulic conductivity and cell signaling pathway [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref43">43</xref>] . It could also be attributed to the enhancement of the affinity of K<sup>+</sup> transporters or to the regulation of K<sup>+</sup>, Na<sup>+</sup> transporters and H<sup>+</sup> pumps, which generate the force necessary to transport these elements under saline conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref40">40</xref>] . Under salt stress, AM symbiosis can increase K<sup>+</sup> uptake and reduce Na<sup>+</sup> translocation to stems and leaves [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref36">36</xref>] . The importance of maintaining appropriate K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> ratios for metabolic functioning has become widely accepted as an indicator of NaCl sensitivity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref44">44</xref>] . In a study carried out on 60 species, including the tomato, it was reported that AMF could induce a marked increase in leaf K<sup>+</sup>/Na<sup>+</sup> ratio by 28% and root ratio by 115% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref45">45</xref>] . They also recorded a small increase in Na<sup>+</sup> (roots) and K<sup>+</sup> (leaves) content of 18%. AMF vesicle vacuoles can store different ions such as sodium and chloride under salt stress [46. In our studies, AMF influenced the increase in potassium and phosphorus levels more than the reduction in sodium levels. In addition to balancing the quantities of Na<sup>+</sup> and Cl<sup>−</sup> by storing them in their vacuole [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref46">46</xref>] , AMF induce an increase in K<sup>+</sup> contents which also contribute to greater root hydraulic conductivity and consequently an improvement in water availability under osmotic stress [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] . Under normal conditions, plant cytosol contains high concentrations of K<sup>+</sup> and low concentrations of Na<sup>+</sup>, which imparts a negative electrical potential to cells [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref47">47</xref>] . At high salt concentrations, there could be a competition between Na<sup>+</sup> and K<sup>+</sup> ions for the occupation of entry sites in the root plasma membrane which affects K<sup>+</sup>-dependent metabolic processes and also disrupts the integrity of root membranes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref7">7</xref>] . Thus, membrane transporters exhibit low affinity to K<sup>+</sup> and high affinity to Na<sup>+</sup> from the environment outside the cytosol. The potassium ion is vital for the plant, as it is necessary for osmotic balance, plays a role in the opening and closing of stomata and is a key factor in protein biosynthesis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] . The impact of mycorrhizal symbiosis on potassium uptake demonstrated that its accumulation in plants was linked to an improvement in their tolerance to salinity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref37">37</xref>] . Unlike many other mineral nutrients, phosphorus is very poorly mobile in soils. Under the action of root removal, areas of impoverishment are quickly created around the roots. A small proportion (generally less than 1%) is immediately available to plants, which have difficulty acquiring this element when their needs are great [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref48">48</xref>] . Indeed, phosphorus is an essential element for the life of the plant. This compound enters into the synthesis of many molecules such as ATP, monophosphate nucleotides, phospholipids and certain enzymes and co-enzymes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref49">49</xref>] . Thus, plants have developed various strategies to increase their ability to absorb phosphorus or its availability in soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref26">26</xref>] . Alongside the strategies allowing the plant to directly take up phosphorus from the soil, the most common method of taking up phosphorus consists of the so-called “mycorrhizal” route, via the extra-root mycelium of the AMF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref48">48</xref>] . To access soil phosphorus pools inaccessible to plants, AMF would be able to hydrolyze organic phosphorus into inorganic phosphorus to make it available in the soil to the plant or even transfer it directly to the host plant [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref3">3</xref>] in exchange for carbohydrates from the plant and transferred to the MAC through the mycorrhizal interface [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref25">25</xref>] . The reduction in phosphorus uptake in saline soils has been attributed to the precipitation of H 2 PO 4 − with Ca<sup>2+</sup> ions in the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref26">26</xref>] . Studies have revealed that the symbiosis of plants with arbuscular fungi induces the expression of specific P transporters [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref50">50</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_4"><title>4.4. Influence of Mycorrhization on the Proline Contents of Tomato Plants Subjected to Salt Stress</title><p>Salinity decreases the osmotic potential of the soil solution and therefore reduces water uptake by the roots. Cellular turgidity is reduced which leads to a phenomenon of plasmolysis. Some plants regulate their internal osmotic pressure by synthesizing osmoprotectors, mainly amino acids such as proline. When present in high concentrations, organic solutes are called “osmolytes” because they maintain high osmotic pressure for important osmotic functions. This term is synonymous with the term “compatible solutes”, because they are compatible with enzymatic activities. The level of proline is determined by the balance between its biosynthesis and its catabolism [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref51">51</xref>] . Proline synthesis is an adaptive action taken by plants and its content is correlated with tolerance to harmful salts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref52">52</xref>] . Indeed, a significant increase (P &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>) in the proline content of the plants is observed at all the inoculation conditions with the increase in the NaCl concentration. The inoculated plants stored higher levels of proline than the un-inoculated ones. Thus, for the Lady Nema variety, plants inoculated with C.etunicatum have the highest increase in proline content (131%). For the Mongal variety, inoculation with R.fasciculatus gave the greatest increase (132%). Several authors have recorded a significant increase in proline content of up to 500% in tomato plants inoculated with AMF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref8">8</xref>] . In this present study, under salt stress conditions, tomato plants recorded increased proline levels, which were significantly increased by the application of AMF. Studies have also revealed an increase in proline levels in tomato plants grown under saline conditions thanks to inoculation with F.mosseae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref10">10</xref>] . Increasing proline levels may be a defensive response to improve plant tolerance to salt stress by maintaining osmotic balance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref52">52</xref>] and mitigating free radical damage [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref31">31</xref>] . In the presence of NaCl, the colonization of the roots by AMF could set up mechanisms allowing the launching of a better synthesis of proline and, therefore, a better tolerance of the plant to salt stress [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref39">39</xref>] . Proline plays several major roles during saline stress. It acts as a metal chelator, a signaling molecule, an active anti-oxidant and a defense molecule that helps buffer cellular redox potential and scavenges free radicals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref51">51</xref>] . An increase in the proline of tissues has also been considered an incidental consequence of NaCl exposure in less tolerant plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.121930-ref44">44</xref>] .</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The study of the growth and development of tomato plants (Solanumlycopersicum L.) of the Mongal and Lady Nema varieties inoculated with AMF and cultivated in soil with increasing concentrations of NaCl revealed a significant interaction between the varieties, AMF strains and salinity levels. The varietal response was dependent on AMF strain and soil NaCl concentration. The salt stress considerably reduced the growth of the physiological and biochemical characteristics of the plants for the two varieties. However, plants inoculated with AMF revealed significant improvement in growth and mycorrhization parameters despite the applied salt stress. Thus, the AMF allowed a better development of the aerial part and that of the roots of the plants with more consequent advantage of the aerial part. Similarly, the mycorrhizal plants considerably increased the phosphorus, potassium and proline contents while reducing those of sodium. Thus, the Lady Nema variety appeared to be more tolerant to salinity thanks in particular to AMF with more effective adaptation mechanisms than those developed by the plants of the Mongal variety. Therefore, for the Lady Nema variety, the association with Claroideoglomusetunicatum brought the best results, followed by that Funneliformismosseae and, finally, Rhizophagusfasciculatus. For the Mongal variety, the Rhizophagusfasciculatus strain is the best fungal partner, followed by Claroideoglomusetunicatum andFunneliformis mosseae for adaptation to salt stress conditions.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to Cheikh Ndiaye (Plant Biology Department, UCAD) for his technical assistance.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>San&#233;, A.K., Kane, A., Diallo, B., Ngom, M., San&#233;, D. and Sy, M.O. (2022) Response to Inoculation with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi of Two Tomato (Solanumlycopersicum L.) Varieties Subjected to Salt Stress under Semi-Con- trolled Conditions. Agricultural Sciences, 13, 1334-1362. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.1312082</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.121930-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kinsou, E., Mensah, A., Hambada, D.K.M., et al. (2020) Response of Seven Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Cultivars Produced in Benin to Salinity Stress at Young Plant Stage. International Journal of Current Research in Biosciences and Plant Biology, 7, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcrbp.2020.708.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hajiboland, R., Aliasgharzadeh, A., Laiegh, S.F. and Poschenrieder, C. (2010) Colonization with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Improves Salinity Tolerance of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Plants. Plant Soil, 331, 313-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0255-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Feng, G., Zhang, F.S., Li, X.L., Tian, C.Y., Tang, C. and Rengel, Z. (2002) Improved Tolerance of Maize Plants to Salt Stress by Arbuscular Mycorrhiza is Related to Higher Accumulation of Soluble Sugars in Roots. Mycorrhiza, 12, 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-002-0170-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yokoi, S., Bressan, R.A. and Hasegawa, P. (2002) Salt Stress Tolerance of Plants. Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Working Report No. 23, 25-33.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, S.E., Smith, F.A. and Jakobsen, I. (2003) Mycorrhizal Fungi Can Dominate Phosphate Supply to Plants Irrespective of Growth Responses. Plant Physiology, 133, 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.024380</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Karaki, G., Hammad, R. and Rusan, M. (2001) Response of Two Tomato Cultivars Differing in Salt Tolerance to Inoculation with Mycorrhizal Fungi under Salt Stress. Mycorrhiza, 11, 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005720100098</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Evelin, H., Kapoor, R. and Giri, B. (2009) Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Alleviation of Salt Stress: A Review. Annals of Botany, 104, 1263-1280. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp251</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Damaiyanti, D.R.R., Aini, N. and Soelistyono, R. (2015) Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Inoculation on Growth and Yield of Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) under Salinity Stress. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management, 3, 447-452.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Lindermann, R.G. (1994) Role of VAM in Biocontrol. In: Pfleger, F.L. and Linderman, R.G., Eds., Mycorrhizae and Plant Health, American Phytopathological Society, Saint Paul, 1-26.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Karaki, G.N. (2000) Growth of Mycorrhizal Tomato and Mineral Acquisition under Salt Stress. Mycorrhiza, 10, 51-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005720000055</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Latef, A.A.H.A. and He, C.X. (2011) Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Growth, Mineral Nutrition, Antioxidant Enzymes Activity and Fruit Yield of Tomato Grown under Salinity Stress. Scientia Horticulturae, 127, 228-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.09.020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Janos, D.P. (2007) Plant Responsiveness to Mycorrhizas Differs from Dependence upon Mycorrhizas. Mycorrhiza, 17, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-006-0094-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sané, A.K., Diallo, B., Kane, A., Sagna, M., Sané, D. and Sy, M.O. (2021) In Vitro Germination and Early Vegetative Growth of Five Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Varieties under Salt Stress Conditions. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 12, 796-817. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2021.125055</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schü&amp;#223;ler, A. and Walker, C. (2010) The Glomeromycota: A Species List with New Families and New Genera. Arthur Schü&amp;#223;ler &amp; Christopher Walker, Gloucester, The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, The Royal Botanic Garden Kew, Botanische Staatssammlung Munich, and Oregon State University, 59 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brundrett, M., Bougher, N., Dell, B., Grove, T. and Malajczuk, N. (1996) Working with Mycorrhizas in Forestry and Agriculture. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 374 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Phillips, J.M. and Hayman, D.S. (1970) Improved Procedures for Clearing Roots and Staining Parasitic and Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi for Rapid Assessment of Infection. Transactions of the British Mycological Society, 55, 158-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1536(70)80110-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Trouvelot, A., Kough, J.L. and Gianinazzi-Pearson, V. (1986) Estimation of Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Infection Levels. Research for Methods Having a Functional Significance. Physiological and Genetical Aspects of mycorrhizae = Aspects physiologiques et genetiques des mycorhizes: Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Mycorrhizae, Dijon, 1-5 July 1985, 217-221.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Centre pour le développement de l’horticulture (CDH) (2019) Caractéristiques physico-chimiques du sol de Sangalkam, 1 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Gerdemann, J.W. (1975) Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizae. In: Torrey, J.G. and Clarkson, D.J., Eds., The Development and Function of Roots, Academic Press, New York, 579-591.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Plenchette, C., Fortin, J.A. and Furlan, V. (1983) Growth Responses of Several Plant Species to Mycorrhizae in a Soil of Moderate P-Fertility: I. Mycorrhizal Dependency under Field Conditions. Plant and Soil, 70, 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374780</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wolf, B. (1982) A Comprehensive System of Leaf Analyses and Its Use for Diagnosing Crop Nutrient Status. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 13, 1035-1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628209367332</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Olsen, S.R. and Dean, L.A. (1965) Phosphorus. In: Norman, A.G., Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, 920-926.https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.c22</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jeschke, W.D. (1983) Cation Fluxes in Excised and Intact Roots in Relation to Specific and Varietal Differences. Plant &amp; Soil, 72, 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02181958</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Monneveux, P. and Nemmar, M. (1986) Contribution à l’étude de la résistance à la sécheresse chez le blé tendre (Triticum aestivum L.) et chez le blé dur (Triticum durum DESF). étude de l’accumulation de la proline au cours du cycle de développement. Agronomie, 6, 583-590. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:19860611</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bonfante, P. and Genre, A. (2010) Mechanisms Underlying Beneficial Plant-Fungus Interactions in Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Nature Communication, 1, Article No. 48. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1046</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manjunath, A. and Habte, M. (1991) Relationship between Mycorrhizal Dependency and Rate Variables Associated with P Uptake, Utilization and Growth. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 22, 1423-1437. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103629109368503</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fortin, J.A., Plenchette, C. and Piché, Y. (2016) Les mycorhizes: L’Essor de la nouvelle révolution verte. 2nd Edition, Editions Quae, Versailles, 184 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douds Jr., D.D., Nagahashi, G., Pfeffer, P.E., Kayser, W.M. and Reider, C. (2005) On-farm Production and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Inoculum. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 85, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.4141/P03-168</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pond, E.C., Menge, J.A. and Jarrell, W.M. (1984) Improved Growth of Tomato in Salinized Soil by Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Collected from Saline Soils. Mycologia, 76, 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1984.12023811</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Latef, A.A.H.A. and Miransari, M. (2014) The Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Alleviation of Salt Stress. In: Miransari, M., Ed., Use of Microbes for the Alleviation of Soil Stresses, Springer, New York, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0721-2_2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Ahanger, M.A., Hashem, A., Abd-Allah, E.F. and Ahmad, P. (2014) Arbuscular Mycorrhiza in Crop Improvement under Environmental Stress. In: Ahmad, P. and Rasool, S., Eds., Emerging Technologies and Management of Crop Stress Tolerance, Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, 69-95.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800875-1.00003-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Munns, R. and Tester, M. (2008) Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 651-681. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Porcel, R., Aroca, R., Cano, C., Bago, A. and Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. (2006) Identification of a Gene from the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus Glomus intraradices Encoding for a 14-3-3 Protein that Is Up-Regulated by Drought Stress during the AM Symbiosis. Microbial Ecology, 52, 575-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-006-9015-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rillig, M.C. and Mummey, D.L. (2006) Mycorrhizas and Soil Structure. New Phytologist Foundation, 171, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhu, J.K. (2003) Regulation of Ion Homeostasis under Salt Stress. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 6, 441-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(03)00085-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hasan</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2016</year>)<article-title>Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi (Funneliformis mosseae) on Tomato Grown in Saline Soil</article-title><source> International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research</source><volume> 6</volume>,<fpage> 257</fpage>-<lpage>262</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Garcia, K. and Zimmermann, S.D. (2014) The Role of Mycorrhizal Associations in Plant Potassium Nutrition. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5, Article 337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00337</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chookhampaeng, S., Wattana, P. and Piyada, T. (2007) Screening Some Tomato Commercial Cultivars from Thailand for Salinity Tolerance. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 6, 788-794. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2007.788.794</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hashem, A., Abd-Allah, E.F., Alqarawi, A.A., et al. (2016) The Interaction between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Endophytic Bacteria Enhances Plant Growth of Acacia gerrardii under Salt Stress. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7, Article 1089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01089</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Parida, A.K. and Das, A.B. (2005) Salt Tolerance and Salinity Effects on Plants: A Review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 60, 324-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Romero-Aranda, M., Soria, T. and Cuartero, J. (2001) Tomato Plant-Water Uptake and Plant-Water Relationships under Saline Growth Conditions. Plant Science: An International Journal of Experimental Plant Biology, 160, 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00388-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Shaharoona, B., Arshad, M., Waqas, R. and Khalid, A. (2012) Role of Ethylene and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria in Stressed Crop Plants. In: Venkateswarlu, B., Shanker, A., Shanker, C. and Maheswari, M., Eds., Crop Stress and Its Management: Perspectives and Strategies, Springer, Dordrecht, 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2220-0_12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">L&amp;#228;uchli, A. and Lüttge, U. (2002) Salinity: Environment-Plants-Molecules. Springer, Dordrecht, 551 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48155-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ruiz-Lozano, J.M., Porcel, R., Azcón, C. and Aroca, R. (2012) Regulation by Arbuscular Mycorrhizae of the Integrated Physiological Response to Salinity in Plants: New Challenges in Physiological and Molecular Studies. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63, 4033-4044. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers126</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Augé, R.M., Toler, H.D. and Saxton, A.M. (2014) Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Alters Stomatal Conductance of Host Plants More under Drought than under Amply Watered Conditions: A Meta-Analysis. Mycorrhiza, 25, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-014-0585-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miransari, M. (2010) Contribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis to Plant Growth under Different Types of Soil Stresses. Plant Biology, 12, 563-569.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00308.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Blumwald, E. (2000) Sodium Transport and Salt Tolerance in Plants. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 12, 431-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-0674(00)00112-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F. and Lemarié, D.P. (2001) Survey Protocol for Assessment of Endangered Freshwater Mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 118-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468193</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maathuis, F.J.M. (2009) Physiological Functions of Mineral Macronutrients. Current Opinion in Plant, 12, 250-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2009.04.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walder, F. and Van der Heijden, M.G.A. (2015) Regulation of Resource Exchange in the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Nature Plants, 1, Article No. 15159. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.159</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Szabados, L. and Savoure, A. (2010) Proline: A Multifunctional Amino Acid. Trends in Plant Science, 15, 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2009.11.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.121930-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Claussen, W. (2005) Proline as Measure of Stress in Tomato Plants. Plant Science, 163, 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.07.039</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>