Next Article in Journal
Development of a Detection System for Types of Weeds in Maize (Zea mays L.) under Greenhouse Conditions Using the YOLOv5 v7.0 Model
Previous Article in Journal
Dissecting Diagnostic and Management Strategies for Plant Viral Diseases: What Next?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Patterns of Nitrogen and Phosphorus along a Chronosequence of Tea Plantations in Subtropical China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture14020285
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Ability of Nutrient Management and Molecular Physiology Advancements to Overcome Abiotic Stress: A Study on Sub-Saharan African Crops

by
Koffi Pacome Kouame
1,
Raj Kishan Agrahari
1,
Noren Singh Konjengbam
2,
Hiroyuki Koyama
1 and
Yuriko Kobayashi
1,*
1
Faculty of Applied Biological Sciences, Gifu University, Gifu 501-1193, Japan
2
College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Umiam 793103, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(2), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020285
Submission received: 6 December 2023 / Revised: 17 January 2024 / Accepted: 5 February 2024 / Published: 9 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Nutrient Management in Soil-Plant System)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Abiotic stress is a major cause of the declining crop yield worldwide, especially in tropical agricultural areas. Meeting the global food demand has become a serious challenge, especially in tropical areas, because of soil acidity, Al and Fe toxicity, drought and heat stress, and climate change. In this article, we reviewed several research and review papers from Google Scholar to list the different solutions available for the mitigation of abiotic stress, especially in tropical regions where several major crops, such as maize, sorghum, wheat, rice, soybean, and millet, are affected by abiotic stress and fertilizer input. In particular, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been affected by the low use of fertilizers owing to their high cost. Therefore, soil and plant researchers and farmers have developed many techniques to mitigate the effects of stress and improve the crop yield based on the agroecological zone and crop type. Nutrient management using chemical fertilizers alone or in combination with organic crops is a strategy recommended to cope with abiotic stress and increase the crop yield, particularly in develo** countries. Notably, integrated soil fertility management has been effective in semi-arid areas under drought and heat stress and in subhumid and humid areas with high soil acidity and Fe toxicity in Africa. Recent advances in the molecular physiology of various crops considered a staple food in SSA have facilitated the breeding of transgenic tolerant plants with high yield. However, the feasibility and implementation of this technique in the African continent and most tropical develo** countries are major issues that can be solved via adequate subsidies and support to farmers. This review can aid in the development of novel strategies to decrease hunger and food insecurity in SSA.

1. Introduction

The global population is estimated to reach approximately 10 billion by 2050 [1,2]. However, many challenges, such as food insecurity, abiotic stress, and increased pest outbreaks, attributed to climate change demand global attention, particularly in tropical regions [3]. Approximately 50% of the global population lives in tropical regions, and more than two-thirds live in extreme poverty [4]. However, in recent years, this situation has been exacerbated by the continuous decline in crop yield owing to increased abiotic stress [4]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has emphasized the need for a 50% increase in food production to meet the rising demand by adopting sustainable farming practices [5,6]. The efficient management of nutrients and irrigation using seeds of high-yielding crop varieties will be necessary to meet the increasing food demand in tropical regions and promote green agriculture.
The use of high-yield crop varieties, inorganic fertilizers, irrigation systems, and synthetic pesticides has substantially enhanced crop productivity in various Asian and developed countries. These agricultural practices have played a vital role in meeting the increasing food demand to ensure sufficient food supply [7,8]. Many studies have focused on the detrimental effects of these practices on surface and groundwater pollution in Asia [9,10,11] and Europe [12]. Among the develo** countries, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which accounts for 13% of the total arable land worldwide [13], is characterized by various factors, such as limited fertilizer availability, high soil acidity [14,15,16], drought, water stress [17], and nutrient deficiency [18]. The International Fertilizer Association has strongly emphasized the critical role of fertilizer inputs in promoting food production and ensuring food security in Africa [19,20,21,22]. However, the adverse effects of pesticide misuse, excessive reliance on synthetic inputs, abiotic stress, and climate change in the tropical regions of both developed and develo** countries have raised concerns [23]. Therefore, proactive and emergency strategies that prioritize green, efficient, and sustainable agricultural practices are necessary to ensure food security for future generations.
Over the past decade, studies have focused on the use of organic compounds to promote sustainable agriculture while mitigating the ecological consequences of increasing global food demand [24,25,26], especially in tropical regions [27]. Consequently, alternative strategies based on research findings in the fields of plant nutrition, climate change, and molecular physiology have been developed for different geographical areas, especially tropical regions. The synergistic application of inorganic and organic compounds can increase the crop yield [7,28,29]. Several studies have elucidated the molecular mechanisms underlying various stresses, such as drought [30], high temperature [31], and soil acidity [32,33,34]. These findings offer valuable insights on plant nutrient management, fertilizer use, and molecular breeding to enhance the agricultural yield in tropical regions.
This review provides comprehensive information on the various abiotic stresses affecting tropical crops, with a particular focus on soil acidity, Al and Fe toxicity, drought and heat stress, and climate change. Furthermore, this review highlights the recent advancements in plant nutrient management and the molecular breeding strategies used to enhance crop yields, fortify sustainable agricultural practices, and ensure food security.

2. Effects of Abiotic Stress on Nutrient Imbalance and Crop Yield

Abiotic stress, namely soil acidity, Al and Fe toxicity, drought and heat stress, and climate change, pose serious environmental challenges that affect and reduce the production of crops worldwide [35]. Crop yields are expected to reduce owing to climate change and the side effects of the increased world population that force the extension of urban areas, thereby limiting agriculture to areas less appropriate for crop cultivation [36]. Among various abiotic stresses, soil acidity, drought, elevated temperatures, and salinity are recognized as the predominant limiting factors [37]. These stresses, in combination with climate change and the emergence of new pests and diseases, have a significant effect on global agricultural production, particularly in tropical regions [38]. Abiotic stresses frequently induce morpho-anatomical and physiological growth constraints, further exacerbating challenges in crop production [39]. Soil acidity, heat stress, drought, and climate change are the most critical limiting factors for maize (Zea mays), millet (Panicum milliaceum), and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) production, but not cassava (Manihot esculenta), which is mainly limited by floods in SSA [40]. In this article, we aimed to outline the adverse effects of these factors, specifically focusing on their impact on tropical crops.

2.1. Al and Fe Toxicity

Soil acidity, characterized by a pH level of ≤5.5, is a significant constraint to crop production worldwide [41]. This condition is particularly prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions [42,43]. The primary challenge associated with acidic soils is the toxicity of aluminum (Al3+), phosphate (PO42−), and iron (Fe2+), which can have detrimental effects on the plant [32,44,45]. This phenomenon adversely affects crops, such as sesame (Sesamum indicum), and impedes nutrient mineralization [43]. It also affects other vegetable crops, such as Brassica juncea, Phaseolus vulgaris, Pisum sativum, and Vigna mungo [46]. This phenomenon affects approximately 600 Mha of land in SSA [14]. In South America, particularly Brazil, soil acidity affects approximately 205 Mha of land [47].
In the tropics, Al toxicity affects 25–80% of crop production [48]. The detrimental effects of Al3+ are manifested in develo** root tips, as they disrupt crucial processes related to cell division, elongation, and genotoxicity. This disturbance ultimately leads to the inhibition of root growth, hindering the ability of crops to extend their roots for nutrient uptake [32,34]. In SSA, Al significantly decreases the yields of several crucial crops (Table 1). For example, in Ethiopia, Al reduces the grain yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [49]. Across SSA, elevated soil acidity can trigger various indirect consequences. These include the suboptimal nodulation of legumes, the proliferation of acid-tolerant weeds, stunted root growth, and a reduction in the yields of various crops, such as millet, sorghum, tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), and tea [50,51]. Soil acidity also reduces enzymatic activity, interrupts microbially mediated nutrient cycling, and hampers microbial activity [52,53]. These constraints vary depending on the degree of acidity [54]. For instance, wheat [54], maize, and canola [55,56] exhibit yield-specific responses to soil pH. Moreover, Al reduces nitrogen (N) uptake and decreases N use efficiency (NUE) and water use efficiency (WUE) in crops such as maize [57], reducing its yield and contributing to high drought stress and nutrient unavailability due to root growth inhibition [46]. In high-income economies, the widespread application of lime to enhance the soil pH has led to remarkable increases in crop yields over the past century [58,59,60,61]. In contrast, low-income economies, particularly those in tropical and subtropical regions, face significant challenges. Extreme poverty often prevents farmers from producing lime to ameliorate soil acidity and boost crop yields [41]. Furthermore, these regions are characterized by iron toxicity, which causes severe damage to rice (Oryza sativa).
Iron toxicity is another major factor that significantly limits crop yields, particularly rice production in West Africa (Table 1). In comparison to Asia, rice production in SSA faces significant challenges arising from additional factors, such as nutrient deficiencies, low base cation exchange, a low nutrient-holding capacity, and high levels of phosphorus fixation [63,77]. Iron toxicity is characterized by physiological indicators, such as leaf chlorosis and necrosis, leading to yield reductions ranging from 10% to 100% [78,79]. Excessive iron uptake and its subsequent accumulation in leaves occur when soil iron concentrations exceed the critical threshold of 500 mg Fe kg−1 [80]. This phenomenon is linked to the development of symptoms of iron toxicity, commencing as brown spots at the leaf tip and advancing to purple, reddish-brown, or yellow discoloration. Ultimately, the affected leaves desiccate, giving the plant a scorched appearance. Concurrently, the root architecture becomes dark brown and weakened [81]. The risk of Fe toxicity is notably high in regions characterized by high rainfall, such as sub-humid and humid zones [77], owing to the poor management of water, crops, and mineral fertilizers [81]. In semi-arid zones, the situation deviates because of the co-occurrence of drought and heat stress, which overlaps with the prevalence of Fe toxicity, ultimately resulting in reduced rice yields [82].

2.2. Drought and Heat Stress

Drought and heat stress are two major abiotic stresses that can occur simultaneously and severely affect crop growth and productivity, especially in arid and semi-arid zones [83,84,85]. Although extensive research has been conducted on drought and heat stress individually [86,87,88,89,90], their combined effects are gaining increasing scientific relevance because of climate change-induced water scarcity.
Several staple African crops, such as cassava (Manihot esculenta), potatoes (Solanum spp.), sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), yams (Dioscorea spp.), and plantains (Musa spp.), have adverse effects on yield due to rising temperatures and the prolonged effects of climate change-induced drought (Table 1). Drought affects nearly 80% of agricultural land, imposing limitations on global yield and crop production in both temperate and tropical regions [65,91,92]. The impact of drought on cereal production has been particularly severe [93]. Recent studies have shown that the combined effects of drought and heat are more severe on maize, barley, and sorghum yields than either stress alone [85]. Moreover, drought and heat stress are affected by climate change.
Climate change is projected to have a significant impact on crop yields in the tropics, particularly in West Africa, where the projected temperature rise of 2.1 °C could severely reduce the maize yield in dry lowlands and lowlands (Table 1). Drought has been established in numerous tropical areas as a factor that leads to decreased crop yields, affecting crops, such as wheat, cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) [93], millet [94], and cassava [69,95]. For instance, up to 84.27% of cassava mortality has been attributed to drought stress [96]. Furthermore, climate change, primarily through drought stress, is recognized for its adverse impact on maize, groundnut [97], and bean yields, as well as on their nutritional quality [98,99]. In SSA, the limited response of major staple crops, such as maize, soybean (Glycine max), sorghum, rice, and cassava, to chemical fertilizers, possibly due to soil acidity, drought, and heat stress, presents a substantial challenge (Table 1). Therefore, optimizing crop nutrient management through fertilizer application (both inorganic and organic) while mitigating stress factors such as Al3+ and Fe2+ toxicity, drought, and heat stress [100] is crucial.

3. Nutrient Management under Abiotic Stress: Combined Use of Inorganic and Organic Fertilizers

3.1. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Nutrient Availability

The application of organic fertilizers, whether used in conjunction with chemical fertilizers or as a discrete method, has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating soil acidification and enhancing soil fertility [100,101]. For example, the incorporation of pig manure and straw as amendments in maize and wheat has been found to enhance the immobilization of abiotic NH4+−N and NO3−−N by increasing the soil carbon content. Notably, manure application independently ameliorated soil acidity, whereas straw amendment did not yield a comparable effect [102]. In tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cultivation, cow manure, whether discrete or combined with synthetic fertilizer in acidic soil, significantly reduced the soil exchangeable acid content, with a substantial 51.28% reduction in exchangeable Al3+ when organic matter was applied, thereby mitigating soil acidification [103]. This practice further led to a 37.19% and 42% increase in exchangeable base cations for cow manure and the combined organic–inorganic fertilizer, respectively, compared to the discrete use of chemical fertilizer. The use of mixed poultry manure (50%) + NPK (50%) or 100% poultry manure significantly elevated the soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and NPK uptake compared with 100% synthetic NPK [104] (Table 2). Conversely, the incorporation of crop residues has demonstrated a high potential to alter soil CEC, organic carbon levels, P, K, and pH [105]. Most studies conducted in Asia have revealed the importance of combining organic and inorganic fertilizers to mitigate environmental stresses, such as water pollution, soil acidity, and plant nutrient deficiency. However, reports indicate that the levels of chemical fertilizers and organic inputs for nitrogen supply are significantly lower in Africa than in Europe and North America [106]. Taken together, it is important to highlight trends in nutrient management to mitigate environmental stress in Africa.

3.2. Crop Responses to Fertilizer Management Practices in SSA

In SSA, the implementation of Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM), which strategically combines organic and inorganic fertilizers, is progressively recommended for African agricultural practices across distinct agroecological zones [124,127,131,132]. ISFM is an approach aimed at enhancing crop yields and sustaining long-term soil fertility by strategically combining fertilizers, recycled organic resources, responsive crop varieties, and improving agronomic practices [51]. In semi-arid zones, where drought and heat stress are severe, plant nutrient management differs significantly from that in sub-humid and humid regions [133,134] (Table 2). ISFM enhances N and P efficiency in maize by 54 and 16%, respectively [135]. The combination of organic input and urea for maize cultivation led to a 64% increase in N uptake and an 84% increase in yield, while the synergistic effects of both (organic input and urea) nearly doubled the yield to 114% [128]. Studies conducted in Ethiopia have demonstrated that the simultaneous application of inorganic and organic fertilizers yielded significantly higher crop production in tropical agroecosystems than using either fertilizer alone. Furthermore, they concluded that the synergy between manure and NP fertilizer, coupled with practices, such as crop rotation, green manuring, and crop residue management, resulted in substantial increases in wheat and faba bean grain yields, emphasizing the economic incentives for farmers to adopt ISFM practices [136]. For example, the yields of maize and sorghum were significantly enhanced by the co-application of NPK, manure, and micronutrients in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania [136]. The efficient uptake of N and P owing to an increase in soil organic matter (SOM) has also been reported in southern Nigeria [136,137]. Furthermore, the utilization of local fertilizers, such as crop residue application, and the implementation of techniques such as mulching or straw application [138] have been shown to notably mitigate soil temperature and drought stress, resulting in enhanced crop yields (Table 2). Recently, African agronomists have emphasized the use of blended fertilizers, such as NPK+S or NPK+Zn, to enhance rice yield [139]. This approach is driven by the potential of certain compounds, such as sulfur (S), to significantly increase agronomic N-use efficiency [140]. This approach may be because of S, Si, Zn, and P deficiencies in most West African countries [141,142,143].
In sub-humid and humid zones, a substitutive approach for ISFM is strongly recommended. This approach involves the application of 50% of the recommended inorganic N or P combined with total manure [125,135] (Table 2). This practice is recommended to compensate for the loss of organic matter and soil nutrients [144]. For example, crop N uptake can be enhanced by 26% by combining synthetic N with manure in maize cultivation [144]. Seasonal variations in crop production, climate change, and abiotic stresses have led researchers, farmers, and governments to diversify organic fertilizer sources, provide guidance, and offer fertilizer subsidies (Figure 1). The utilization of a rock-based fertilizer (phosphate rock) in conjunction with compost resulted in enhanced Maize and Soybean yields of 2.5 t·ha−1 during both the dry and rainy seasons. Similarly, Yam yields increased to 2.5 t·ha−1 during the rainy season and 3.0 t·ha−1 during the dry season [145]. In Nigeria, rock phosphate combined with poultry manure increased the P content and yield of maize and cowpea [146]. Furthermore, N, P, and K uptake was significant in sorghum in the presence of combined rock phosphate and farmyard manure [147]. Sustainable agricultural productivity can be improved through effective disease management, optimized soil and water resources, the use of organic fertilizers, the utilization of new tools and facilities (Figure 1), and the adoption of improved plant varieties with good-quality seeds from traditional or biotechnological sources, including transgenic breeding. Transgenic varieties are considered a promising approach for doubling or tripling African crop yields [70,148]. However, their successful utilization for abiotic and biotic stress tolerance requires a clear understanding of the molecular physiological mechanisms related to stresses, such as Al and Fe toxicity, nutrient deficiency, drought, and heat stress, whether occurring individually or in combination, within specific crop species.

4. Molecular and Physiological Mechanisms of Abiotic Stress

In this section, we explore the molecular and physiological mechanisms developed by plants to alleviate Al toxicity and cope with drought and heat stress. Additionally, we provide examples of major crops cultivated in tropical regions that hold potential for the future molecular breeding of crop varieties.

4.1. Molecular and Physiological Mechanisms Underlying Al Stress

It has been observed that the mechanisms regulating Al tolerance are different in various phytospecies under Al stress conditions [149]. In some species, various mechanisms can function simultaneously to generate Al resilience through their combined effects. Although the type of tolerance generation mechanism for Al3+-induced phytotoxicity remains controversial, Al exclusion mechanisms are widely accepted to be involved in Al3+ detoxification [150]. However, the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying Al phytotoxicity have been extensively studied, primarily utilizing model plants, such as Arabidopsis, and important crops such as wheat and rice [30,32,151,152]. Based on these studies, two primary categories of plant tolerance mechanisms have been proposed to mitigate the toxic effects of Al: “Exclusion” and “Internal Al tolerance” [153,154]. In the context of Al, exclusion mechanisms are characterized by their capacity to reduce the presence of rhizotoxic Al ions (Al3+) within the symplasm of plant cells, whereas internal tolerance mechanisms effectively mitigate Al toxicity and damage within the cytosol. Furthermore, additional mechanisms have been identified, such as the alteration of rhizosphere pH, Al efflux across the plasma membrane [152], and the removal of Al by the sufficient application of calcium at the plasma membrane surface, which creates a negatively charged screen between Al and the plasma membrane [155].
Numerous studies have provided evidence supporting the Al exclusion mechanism, that is, the excretion of organic acids (OAs) that effectively chelate Al3+ toxic ions in various plants, including staple food crops commonly grown in tropical regions. This phenomenon is mediated by specific transporters for OAs, such as aluminum-activated malate transporter1 (ALMT1), which is encoded by the ALMT1 gene in wheat [156]. This gene has been characterized in several other plants and crops (Table 3), including AtALMT1 in Arabidopsis [157], BnALMT1 and BnALMT2 in rapeseed (Brassica napus) [158], and VrALMT1 in mung beans (Vigna radiata) [159]. In addition, similar patterns of Al-activated citrate transporter genes from the multidrug and toxic compounds extrusion (MATE) family, such as HvAACT1 [160] and SbMATE [161,162], have been observed, with their constitutive expression reported for the first time in barley (Hordeum vulgare) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Moreover, citric acid has been shown to have a strong affinity for Al and enhance phosphorus availability from insoluble Al phosphate in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [163]. Recently, several MATE family genes associated with citrate secretion have been identified in various crops, including maize (Zea mays), rice (Oryza sativa), peanut (Arachis hypogaea), and soybean (Glycine max) (Table 3). Studies in Arabidopsis have provided strong evidence that the expression of AtALMT1 and AtMATE is regulated by several transcription factors [155,164]. A notable example is the involvement of the master regulator SENSITIVE TO PROTON RHIZOTOXICITY1 (STOP1), which has been identified as a key regulator of the Al-inducible expression of both AtALMT1 and AtMATE under Al stress [165,166,167]. In contrast, STOP1 was highly conserved among plants [168]. Recently, it was suggested that SbSTOP1 in Sorghum activates the transcription of the β-1,3-glucanase, which reduces callose deposition under Al toxicity [169]. In addition to its role in the Al stress response, STOP1 has demonstrated pleiotropic regulation under various stresses, such as salt, drought, hypoxia, low pH, and nutrient management [170,171]. For example, in maize, ZmSTOP1 plays a crucial role in drought tolerance by exhibiting hypersensitivity to abscisic acid (ABA) treatment in the roots and insensitivity to stomatal hormones, consequently promoting stomatal closure [172]. Therefore, STOP1 is a useful genetic factor for alleviating Al stress and other growth-limiting factors. Therefore, further studies should analyze the STOP1-mediated environmental stress tolerance in various crops.

4.2. Drought and Heat Stress

4.2.1. Physiological Adaptation

Abiotic stresses, such as high temperatures and water deficits, can adversely affect plant growth and development, resulting in irreversible declines in crop yields [28,208,209]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [210], the synergistic effects of drought and heat stress are expected to increase. Consequently, it is crucial to gain a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms utilized by plants to respond to both stresses. Drought-induced molecular physiological dysfunctions include stomatal closure, oxidative stress, reduced photosynthesis the, disruption of cell walls, and a reduction in root length and plant growth [90,211]. Numerous plant species have developed multiple mechanisms, including the alternative oxidase (AOX) [212], to mitigate or withstand drought stress [213,214]. This stress triggers the activation of numerous genes and transcription factors, leading to the synthesis of a wide array of proteins and enzymes [211,215,216,217,218]. Extensive research has been conducted on diverse plant species, including Arabidopsis [83,219], wheat [220], barley [221], and tobacco [82], to investigate their responses to combined drought and heat stress, as well as their individual responses to each stress condition. These studies revealed similar physiological responses, with more severe damage being observed in plants exposed to both stresses than in those subjected to a single stress. These findings highlight the existence of shared defense mechanisms among these plant species in response to drought and heat stress [222]. In this section, our primary emphasis is on the prominent crops cultivated in tropical regions, highlighting the molecular and physiological mechanisms that have evolved to mitigate the combined effects of drought and heat stress.
Plants adopt three primary strategies for co** with drought stress: escape, avoidance, and tolerance [223]. Avoidance involves stomatal closure, reduced photosynthesis, enhanced respiration, and suppressed transpiration to maintain the plant’s water status and prevent water loss [82]. For example, morphophysiological mechanisms in maize and sorghum under heat or drought stress are characterized by leaf wax, a lower leaf angle, compact tassels, and a lower cob angle, all of which aim to prevent evapotranspiration [224,225]. An important physiological adaptation in plants is the increase in photosynthetic rates. The maintenance of optimal photosynthetic activity contributes to membrane stability and enhances heat tolerance [226]. Moreover, stomatal conductance is significantly reduced under both stress conditions in Arabidopsis and citrus plants [83,219]. Plants exhibit time-dependent responses to both drought and high temperatures. Initially, low levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as H2O2 and O2−, are observed within the first 24 h, accompanied by an increase in antioxidant enzyme activity. However, at later time points (after 24 h), ROS levels increase substantially, while the antioxidant enzyme activity gradually decreases, potentially indicating the disruption of the antioxidant pathway [227]. Stress-dependent ROS detoxification mechanisms are also observed with heat-stress-inducing cytosolic ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and thioredoxin peroxidase (TPX), whereas drought stress leads to an increase in catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase activities. However, a combination of these stresses uniquely induces glutathione S-transferase (GST), glutathione reductase (GR), copper–zinc superoxide dismutase (CuZnSOD), AOX, and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) enzymes [228].

4.2.2. Molecular Mechanism

Transcriptomic analyses of several plants under drought and heat stress have revealed many transcripts [82,83,222] involved in mitigating these stresses. For example, the transcriptome of sorghum under combined drought and heat stress revealed 5779 transcripts (3003 upregulated and 2776 downregulated). Gene ontology analysis revealed enrichment in categories related to lipid localization, the regulation of photosynthesis, fluid transport, and protein folding. Importantly, these enriched categories overlapped with the responses observed under drought or heat stress [229]. Moreover, a unique set of genes was identified as a specific response of sorghum to combined stress. Similar trends were observed for Arabidopsis [82], tobacco [83], and wheat [230]. Furthermore, OsMYB55 is tolerant to high temperatures and drought stress in maize [231]. An analysis of OsMYB55 transgenic maize revealed the significant upregulation of genes associated with abiotic stresses, such as heat, dehydration, and oxidative stress [231]. This suggests that plants perceive combined stress as a unique transcriptional response during adaptation. Interestingly, drought and heat abiotic stresses induce several transcription factors, such as the ethylene-responsive transcriptional co-activator, dehydration-responsive element-binding proteins (DREBs), and WRKY, to improve plant endurance [82,83], calcium transporter ATPase 9, and proteins involved in disease resistance [232]. Some transcription factors that are well-known master regulators of stress-responsive genes under abiotic stresses (drought and heat) have been extensively studied because of their vital roles in crop yield improvement [233]. For example, a DREB2 transcription factor from sorghum, the SbDREB2 gene, showed higher resistance to water deficit than the wild type in transgenic rice [234], and potato StDREB also showed the same resistance in transgenic cotton [235]. In Arabidopsis and wheat, AtDREB1A and TaDREB1A exhibit high tolerance to abiotic stress [236]. Furthermore, in barley, HD-zip genes (HDZI-3 and HDZI-4) from wheat can be used in combination with DREB/CBF transcription factors to enhance abiotic stress (drought) tolerance and improve crop yield [237]. Increased levels of phytohormone ABA, which plays a key role in regulating several plant responses during abiotic stress, in dry soil helps in the maintenance of root growth, hydraulic conductivity, and water uptake [208]. ABA is also transported via the xylem to the shoot, inducing stomatal closure to reduce the water use efficiency [208]. As the transcriptome can vary depending on the type of plant, time, and severity of stress [228], the functions of proteins encoded by these genes and their associated metabolic pathways need to be further explored. This knowledge is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms involved in mitigating the combined effects of drought and heat stress. This understanding can be useful in arid and semi-arid regions such as Africa, tropical parts of India, and Latin America where crops such as Sorghum bicolor hold significant importance as grain crops [229]. These studies indicate the substantial advancements in the development of crop varieties well suited for agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions.

5. Conclusions

In this review, the multifaceted exploration of factors affecting global crop production revealed the critical challenges posed by environmental stresses, such as soil acidity, Al and Fe toxicity, drought, and heat stress. The far-reaching consequences of these factors on nutrient balance and crop yield, particularly in tropical regions, highlight the urgent need for new strategies to address these issues. The integration of organic and inorganic fertilizers with region-specific nutrient management practices has emerged as a key solution to enhance soil health and mitigate environmental stress. In SSA, ISFM is used as a strategic approach combining organic and inorganic fertilizers to improve nutrient efficiency. This article also discussed the beneficial effects of enhancing nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, mitigating drought and heat stress in semi-arid regions, and tailoring practices to different agroecological zones. The further exploration of Al tolerance mechanisms revealed the complex strategies used by plants. The identification of key players, such as the ALMT1 and MATE family members and STOP1 transcription factor, highlighted the potential of genetic factors to overcome Al stress and other growth-limiting processes. This review lays the foundation for the further investigation of STOP1-mediated stress tolerance and facilitates the development of crop varieties resilient to different environmental conditions. The interplay between drought and heat stress poses a substantial threat to global agriculture, particularly tropical crops. The adaptive complexity of plant responses, including escape, avoidance, and tolerance strategies, emphasizes the dynamic nature of the plant defense system. The shared defense mechanisms of various plant species present new avenues for targeted research and stress tolerance interventions. Transcriptomic analyses of various plants under combined drought and heat stress provide valuable insights into the specific gene expressions and pathways involved in stress mitigation, suggesting new targets for crop improvement. Continued research and innovative approaches are crucial to navigate the complex landscape of climate change and its impact on agriculture. This article reveals the ongoing efforts to develop sustainable strategies for food security to overcome the escalating abiotic stresses. The findings presented here may impact the agricultural practices used in various regions and aid in adapting crops to challenging environments and fostering sustainable agricultural practices.

Author Contributions

K.P.K., H.K. and Y.K. designed the paper; K.P.K., R.K.A. and Y.K. wrote the paper, N.S.K., H.K. and Y.K. review and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22H02227.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the first author and corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423); United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Buettner, T. World Population Prospects—A Long View. Econ. Et Stat. Econ. Stat. 2020, 520–521, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Haque, E.; Taniguchi, H.; Hassan, M.; Bhowmik, P.; Karim, M.R.; Śmiech, M.; Zhao, K.; Rahman, M.; Islam, T. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Technology for the Improvement of Crops Cultivated in Tropical Climates: Recent Progress, Prospects, and Challenges. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Campos, H.; Caligari, P.D. Genetic Improvement of Tropical Crops; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. FAO. Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition in Africa 2017. The Food Security and Nutrition—Conflict Nexus: Building Resilience for Food Security, Nutrition, and Peace; FAO: Accra, Ghana, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. FAO. (2018a): The Future of Food and Agriculture: Alternative Pathways to 2050. p. 228. Available online: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/en/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  7. Timsina, J. Can organic sources of nutrients increase crop yields to meet global food demand? Agronomy 2018, 8, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thilakarathna, M.S.; Raizada, M.N. A Review of nutrient management studies involving finger millet in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa. Agronomy 2015, 5, 262–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nakagawa, K.; Amano, H.; Asakura, H.; Berndtsson, R. Spatial trends of nitrate pollution and groundwater chemistry in Shimabara, Nagasaki, Japan. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yu, G.; Wang, J.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S. The analysis of groundwater nitrate pollution and health risk assessment in rural areas of Yantai, China. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, P.; Bi, Z.; Shan, Z.; Ren, L. The deep challenge of nitrate pollution in river water of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 144674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lawniczak, A.E.; Zbierska, J.; Nowak, B.; Achtenberg, K.; Grześkowiak, A.; Kanas, K. Impact of agriculture and land use on nitrate contamination in groundwater and running waters in central-west Poland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. FAO. Boosting African soils: From the Abuja Declaration on Fertilizers to a Sustainable Soil Management Framework for Food and Nutrition Security in Africa by 2030; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bationo, A.; Hartemink, A.; Lungu, O.; Naimi, M.; Okoth, P.; Smaling, E.; Thiombiano, L.; Waswa, B. Knowing the African Soils to Improve Fertilizer Recommendations. In Improving Soil Fertility Recommendations in Africa Using the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Chapter 3; pp. 19–42. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ittersum, M.K.; van Bussel, L.G.J.; Wolf, J.; Grassini, P.; van Wart, J.; Guilpart, N.; Claessens, L.; de Groot, H.; Wiebe, K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 14964–14969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. FAO; ITPS. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR)—Main Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i5199e/i5199e.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  18. Singh, B.; Craswell, E. Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. AAVV. Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa; 1989, Progress in breeding rice for tolerance to iron toxicity. WARDA Annual report; Abifarin, A.O., Ed.; ITDG Publishing: London, UK, 2001; pp. 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  20. FAO. Africa Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition. The Challenges of Building Resilience to Shocks and Stresses; FAO: Accra, Ghana, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pradhan, P.; Lüdeke, M.K.; Reusser, D.E.; Kropp, J.P. Food self-sufficiency across scales: How local can we go? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9463–9470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pradhan, P.; Fischer, G.; van Velthuizen, H.; Reusser, D.E.; Kropp, J.P. Closing yield gaps: How sustainable can we be? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Avery, D. From saving the planet with pesticides. In The True State of the Planet; Baley, R., Ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller, J.J. The organic myth. Natl. Rev. 2006, 56, 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  25. Badgley, C.; Moghtader, J.; Quintero, E.; Zakem, E.; Chappell, M.J.; Avilés-Vázquez, K.; Samulon, A.; Perfecto, I. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2007, 22, 86–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Agegnehu, G.; Amede, T.; Erkossa, T.; Yirga, C.; Henry, C.; Tyler, R.; Nosworthy, M.G.; Beyene, S.; Sileshi, G.W. Extent and management of acid soils for sustainable crop production system in the tropical agroecosystems: A review. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2021, 71, 852–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vanlauwe, B.; Wendt, J.; Diels, J. Combined application of organic matter and fertilizer. Sustain. Soil Fertil. West Afr. 2001, 58, 247–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vanlauwe, B.; Aihou, K.; Aman, S.; Iwuafor, E.N.O.; Tossah, B.K.; Diels, J.; Sanginga, N.; Lyasse, O.; Merckx, R.; Deckers, J. Maize yield as affected by organic inputs and urea in the west african moist savanna. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1191–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. dos Santos, T.B.; Ribas, A.F.; de Souza, S.G.H.; Budzinski, I.G.F.; Domingues, D.S. Physiological responses to drought, salinity, and heat stress in plants: A review. Stresses 2022, 2, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Nahar, K.; Alam, M.M.; Roychowdhury, R.; Fujita, M. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 9643–9684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kochian, L.V.; Hoekenga, O.A.; Piñeros, M.A. How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 459–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ohkama-Ohtsu, N.; Wasaki, J. Recent progress in plant nutrition research: Cross-talk between nutrients, plant physiology and soil microorganisms. Plant Cell Physiol. 2010, 51, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koyama, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Panda, S.K.; Taylor, G.J. The molecular physiology and regulation of aluminum resistance in higher plants. In Aluminum Stress Adaptation in Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 169–185. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kopecká, R.; Kameniarová, M.; Černý, M.; Brzobohatý, B.; Novák, J. Abiotic stress in crop production. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, e6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Döös, B.R. Population growth and loss of arable land. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002, 12, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shrestha, S. Effects of climate change in agricultural insect pest. Acta Sci. Agric. 2019, 3, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tadele, Z. African orphan crops under abiotic stresses: Challenges and opportunities. Scientifica 2018, 2018, 1451894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumari, V.V.; Banerjee, P.; Verma, V.C.; Sukumaran, S.; Chandran, M.A.S.; Gopinath, K.A.; Venkatesh, G.; Yadav, S.K.; Singh, V.K.; Awasthi, N.K. Plant Nutrition: An Effective Way to Alleviate Abiotic Stress in Agricultural Crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cakmak, I. Role of mineral nutrients in tolerance of crop plants to environmental stress factors. In Proceedings of the from the International Symposium on Fertigation–Optimizing the Utilization of Water and Nutrients, Bei**g, China, 20–24 September 2005; pp. 35–48. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sumner, M.E.; Noble, A.D. Soil acidification: The world story. In Handbook of Soil Acidity; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  42. Demessie, A.; Singh, B.R.; Lal, R. Land degradation and soil carbon pool in different land uses and their implication for food security in southern Ethiopia. In Sustainable Intensification to Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  43. Meena, R.S.; Kumar, S.; Bohra, J.S.; Lal, R.; Yadav, G.S.; Pandey, A. Response of alley crop**-grown sesame to lime and sulphur on yield and available nutrient status in an acidic soil of Eastern India. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2019, 4, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tandzi, L.N.; Mutengwa, C.S.; Ngonkeu, E.L.M.; Gracen, V. Breeding maize for tolerance to acidic soils: A review. Agronomy 2018, 8, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Luko-Sulato, K.; Rosa, V.A.; Furlan, L.M.; Rosolen, V. Concentration of essential and toxic elements as a function of the depth of the soil and the presence of fulvic acids in a wetland in Cerrado, Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saikia, J.; Sarma, R.K.; Dhandia, R.; Yadav, A.; Bharali, R.; Gupta, V.K.; Saikia, R. Alleviation of drought stress in pulse crops with ACC deaminase producing rhizobacteria isolated from acidic soil of Northeast India. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fageria, N.K.; Baligar, V.C. Improving nutrient use efficiency of annual crops in brazilian acid soils for sustainable crop production. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 1303–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Singh, D.; Singh, N.P.; Chauhan, S.K.; Singh, P. Develo** aluminum-tolerant crop plants using biotechnological tools. Curr. Sci. 2011, 100, 1807–1814. [Google Scholar]
  49. Haile, W.; Boke, S.; Box, P. Mitigation of Soil Acidity and Fertility Decline Challenges for Sustainable Livelihood Improvement: Research Findings from Southern Region of Ethiopia and Its Policy Implications; Awassa Agricultural Research Institute: Hawassa, Ethiopia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  50. Somani, L.L. Crop Production in Acid Soils; No.Ed. 1; Agrotech Publishing Academy: Udaipur, India, 1996; p. 223. [Google Scholar]
  51. Marschner, H. (Ed.) Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kunito, T.; Isomura, I.; Sumi, H.; Park, H.-D.; Toda, H.; Otsuka, S.; Nagaoka, K.; Saeki, K.; Senoo, K. Aluminum and acidity suppress microbial activity and biomass in acidic forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 97, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhou, S.; Liang, W.; Zeng, T.; Liu, X.; Meng, L.; Bi, X. Ca Saturation Determines Crop Growth in Acidic Ultisols Derived from Different Parent Materials. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021, 54, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Baquy, M.A.-A.; Li, J.-Y.; Xu, C.-Y.; Mehmood, K.; Xu, R.-K. Determination of critical pH and Al concentration of acidic Ultisols for wheat and canola crops. Solid Earth 2017, 8, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhao, W.; Shi, R.; Hong, Z.; Xu, R. Critical values of soil solution Al3+ activity and pH for canola and maize cultivation in two acidic soils. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 6984–6991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pan, X.; Baquy, M.A.-A.; Guan, P.; Yan, J.; Wang, R.; Xu, R.; ** abiotic stresses for rice in Africa: Drought, cold, iron toxicity, salinity and sodicity. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 219, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. FAO. The state of food and agriculture 2021. In The State of Food and Agriculture 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Maleki, A.; Naderi, A.; Naseri, R.; Fathi, A.; Bahamin, S.; Maleki, R. Physiological performance of soybean cultivars under drought stress. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2013, 2, 38–44. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tadesse, W.; Bishaw, Z.; Assefa, S. Wheat production and breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa:Challenges and opportunities in the face of climate change. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 11, 696–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Araya, A.; Habtu, S.; Haile, M.; Sisay, F.; Dejene, T. Determination of local barley (Hordeum vulgare) crop coefficient and comparative assessment of water productivity for crops grown under the present pond water in tigray, northern Ethiopia. Momona Ethiop. J. Sci. 2011, 3, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Connor, D.; Palta, J. Response of cassava to water shortage III. Stomatal control of plant water status. Field Crop. Res. 1981, 4, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parker, M.L.; Low, J.W.; Andrade, M.; Schulte-Geldermann, E.; Andrade-Piedra, J. Climate change and seed systems of roots, tubers and bananas: The cases of potato in Kenya and Sweetpotato in Mozambique. In The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers: Investigating the Business of a Productive, Resilient and Low Emission Future; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 99–111. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hadebe, S.T.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T. Drought tolerance and water use of cereal crops: A focus on sorghum as a food security crop in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2017, 203, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Matsuura, A.; Tsuji, W.; An, P.; Inanaga, S.; Murata, K. Effect of pre- and post-heading water deficit on growth and grain yield of four millets. Plant Prod. Sci. 2012, 15, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rakkammal, K.; Maharajan, T.; Shriram; Ram, P.J.; Ceasar, S.A.; Ramesh, M. Physiological, biochemical and molecular responses of finger millet (Eleusine coracana) genotypes exposed to short-term drought stress induced by PEG-6000. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2023, 155, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adhikari, U.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Woznicki, S.A. Climate change and eastern Africa: A review of impact on major crops. Food Energy Secur. 2015, 4, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Eggen, M.; Ozdogan, M.; Zaitchick, B.; Ademe, D.; Foltz, J.; Simane, B. Vulnerability of sorghum production to extreme, sub-seasonal weather under climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 045005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jarvis, A.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Campo, B.V.H.; Navarro-Racines, C. Is cassava the answer to african climate change adaptation? Trop. Plant Biol. 2012, 5, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Haefele, S.M.; Wopereis, M.C.S. Combining Field and Simulation Studies to Improve Fertilizer Recommendations for Irrigated Rice in the Senegal River Valley. Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems Through Site-Specific Nutrient Management; Science Publishers: Enfield, NH, USA; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2004; pp. 265–286. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chérif, M.; Audebert, A.; Fofana, M.; Zouzou, M. Evaluation of iron toxicity on lowland irrigated rice in West Africa. Tropicultura 2009, 27, 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  71. Marschner, H.; Römheld, V. Strategies of plants for acquisition of iron. In Iron Nutrition in Soils and Plants: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Iron Nutrition and Interactions in Plants, 27 June–2 July 1993, Zaragoza, Spain; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; pp. 375–388. [Google Scholar]
  72. Audebert, A.; Fofana, M. Rice Yield Gap due to Iron Toxicity in West Africa. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2009, 195, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Futakuchi, K.; Senthilkumar, K.; Arouna, A.; Vandamme, E.; Diagne, M.; Zhao, D.; Manneh, B.; Saito, K. History and progress in genetic improvement for enhancing rice yield in sub-Saharan Africa. Field Crop. Res. 2021, 267, 108159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mittler, R.; Merquiol, E.; Hallak-Herr, E.; Rachmilevitch, S.; Kaplan, A.; Cohen, M. Living under a ‘dormant’ canopy: A molecular acclimation mechanism of the desert plant Retama raetam. Plant J. 2001, 25, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Rizhsky, L.; Liang, H.; Mittler, R. The combined effect of drought stress and heat shock on gene expression in tobacco. Plant Physiol. 2002, 130, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Rizhsky, L.; Liang, H.; Shuman, J.; Shulaev, V.; Davletova, S.; Mittler, R. When Defense Pathways Collide. The response of arabidopsis to a combination of drought and heat stress. Plant Physiol. 2004, 134, 1683–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vierling, E. The roles of heat shock proteins in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1991, 42, 579–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Molecular responses to drought and cold stress. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 1996, 7, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kotak, S.; Larkindale, J.; Lee, U.; von Koskull-Döring, P.; Vierling, E.; Scharf, K.-D. Complexity of the heat stress response in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Jaleel, C.A.; Manivannan, P.A.; Wahid, A.; Farooq, M.; Al-Juburi, H.J.; Somasundaram, R.A.; Panneerselvam, R. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pigments composition. Int. J. Agric. Biol 2009, 11, 100–105. [Google Scholar]
  81. Fathi, A.; Tari, D.B. Effect of drought stress and its mechanism in plants. Int. J. Life Sci. 2016, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mohammadi, R. Breeding for increased drought tolerance in wheat: A review. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2018, 69, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nezhadahmadi, A.; Prodhan, Z.H.; Faruq, G. Drought tolerance in wheat. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 610721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Koua, A.P.; Oyiga, B.C.; Baig, M.M.; Léon, J.; Ballvora, A. Breeding Driven Enrichment of Genetic Variation for Key Yield Components and Grain Starch Content Under Drought Stress in Winter Wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 684205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Usman, M.; Farooq, S.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Siddique, K.H.M. Impact of abiotic stresses on grain composition and quality in food legumes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 8887–8897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Tadele, Z. Drought Adaptation in Millets; InTech: Houston, TX, USA, 2016; pp. 639–662. [Google Scholar]
  87. Muiruri, S.K.; Ntui, V.O.; Tripathi, L.; Tripathi, J.N. Mechanisms and approaches towards enhanced drought tolerance in cassava (Manihot esculenta). Curr. Plant Biol. 2021, 28, 100227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Koundinya, A.V.V.; Hegde, V.; Sheela, M.N.; Chandra, C.V. Evaluation of cassava varieties for tolerance to water deficit stress conditions. J. Root Crops 2018, 44, 70–75. [Google Scholar]
  89. Masikati, P.; Descheemaeker, K.; Crespo, O. Understanding the role of soils and management on crops in the face of climate uncertainty in Zimbabwe: A sensitivity analysis. In The Climate Smart Agriculture Papers: Investigating the Business of a Productive, Resilient and Low Emission Future; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  90. Challinor, A.J.; Wheeler, T.R.; Craufurd, P.Q.; Ferro, C.A.T.; Stephenson, D.B. Adaptation of crops to climate change through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 190–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lloyd, S.J.; Kovats, R.S.; Chalabi, Z. Climate change, crop yields, and undernutrition: Development of a model to quantify the impact of climate scenarios on child undernutrition. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1817–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mallory, E.B.; Griffin, T.S. Impacts of soil amendment history on nitrogen availability from manure and fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 964–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Sun, B.; Fan, J.; Zhang, J.; Müller, C.; Cai, Z. Effects of 14 years of repeated pig manure application on gross nitrogen transformation in an upland red soil in China. Plant Soil 2017, 415, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, J.; Sun, N.; Xu, M.; Wang, S.; Zhang, J.; Cai, Z.; Cheng, Y. The influence of long-term animal manure and crop residue application on abiotic and biotic N immobilization in an acidified agricultural soil. Geoderma 2019, 337, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dai, P.; Cong, P.; Wang, P.; Dong, J.; Dong, Z.; Song, W. Alleviating Soil Acidification and Increasing the Organic Carbon Pool by Long-Term Organic Fertilizer on Tobacco Planting Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Almaz, M.G.; Halim, R.A.; Martini, M.Y.; Samsuri, A.W. Integrated application of poultry manure and chemical fertilizer on soil chemical properties and nutrient uptake of maize and soybean. Malays. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 21, 13–28. [Google Scholar]
  97. Fu, T.; Xu, Y.; Hou, W.; Yi, Z.; Xue, S. Long-term cultivation of Miscanthus and switchgrass accelerates soil organic carbon accumulation by decreasing carbon mineralization in infertile red soil. GCB Bioenergy 2022, 14, 1065–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mosier, A.; Syers, J.K.; Freney, J.R. (Eds.) Agriculture and the Nitrogen Cycle: Assessing the Impacts of Fertilizer Use on Food Production and the Environment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Volume 65. [Google Scholar]
  99. Barron, J.; Okwach, G. Run-off water harvesting for dry spell mitigation in maize (Zea mays L.): Results from on-farm research in semi-arid Kenya. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 74, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Masvaya, E.N.; Nyamangara, J.; Descheemaeker, K.; Giller, K.E. Tillage, mulch and fertiliser impacts on soil nitrogen availability and maize production in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kihanda, F.M.; Warren, G.P.; Micheni, A.N. Effects of manure application on crop yield and soil chemical properties in a long-term field trial in semi-arid Kenya. In Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in SUB-SAHARAN Africa: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer: Heidelberg, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 471–486. [Google Scholar]
  102. Atangana, A.; Khasa, D.; Chang, S.; Degrande, A. Tropical Agroforestry (No. 15310); Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  103. Kaizzi, K.C.; Mohammed, M.B.; Nouri, M. Fertilizer use optimization: Principles and approach. In Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Korodjouma, O.; Idriss, S.; Salif, B.; Prosper, Z. Soil and water conservation, and soil fertility management effects on rain water productivity of maize hybrid in Burkina Faso. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 12, 1014–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Demissie, N.; Bekele, I. Optimizing fertilizer use within an integrated soil fertility management framework in Ethiopia. In Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shehzadi, S.; Shah, Z.; Mohammad, W. Impact of organic amendments on soil carbon sequestration, water use efficiency and yield of irrigated wheat. BASE 2017, 21, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Anikwe, M.A.N.; Eze, J.C.; Ibudialo, A.N. Influence of lime and gypsum application on soil properties and yield of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz.) in a degraded Ultisol in Agbani, Enugu Southeastern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 158, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Caires, E.F.; Joris, H.A.W.; Churka, S. Long-term effects of lime and gypsum additions on no-till corn and soybean yield and soil chemical properties in southern Brazil. Soil Use Manag. 2011, 27, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Anderson, G.C.; Pathan, S.; Easton, J.; Hall, D.J.M.; Sharma, R. Short- and long-term effects of lime and gypsum applications on acid soils in a water-limited environment: 1. grain yield response and nutrient concentration. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Mutuku, E.A.; Roobroeck, D.; Vanlauwe, B.; Boeckx, P.; Cornelis, W.M. Maize production under combined Conservation Agriculture and Integrated Soil Fertility Management in the sub-humid and semi-arid regions of Kenya. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 254, 107833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zingore, S.; Tittonell, P.; Corbeels, M.; van Wijk, M.T.; Giller, K.E. Managing soil fertility diversity to enhance resource use efficiencies in smallholder farming systems: A case from Murewa District, Zimbabwe. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zingore, S. Maize productivity and response to fertilizer use as affected by soil fertility variability, manure application, and crop** system. Better Crops 2011, 95, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
  113. Kätterer, T.; Roobroeck, D.; Andrén, O.; Kimutai, G.; Karltun, E.; Kirchmann, H.; Nyberg, G.; Vanlauwe, B.; de Nowina, K.R. Biochar addition persistently increased soil fertility and yields in maize-soybean rotations over 10 years in sub-humid regions of Kenya. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 235, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zingore, S.; Murwira, H.; Delve, R.; Giller, K. Influence of nutrient management strategies on variability of soil fertility, crop yields and nutrient balances on smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 112–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zingore, S.; Murwira, H.; Delve, R.; Giller, K. Soil type, management history and current resource allocation: Three dimensions regulating variability in crop productivity on African smallholder farms. Field Crop. Res. 2007, 101, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Vanlauwe, B.; Giller, K. Popular myths around soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Vanlauwe, B.; Kihara, J.; Chivenge, P.; Pypers, P.; Coe, R.; Six, J. Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize-based systems in sub-Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility management. Plant Soil 2011, 339, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Vanlauwe, B.; Descheemaeker, K.; Giller, K.E.; Huising, J.; Merckx, R.; Nziguheba, G.; Wendt, J.; Zingore, S. Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling local adaptation. Soil 2015, 1, 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nalivata, P.; Kibunja, C.; Mutegi, J.; Tetteh, F.; Tarfa, B.; Dicko, M.K.; Ouattara, K.; Cyamweshi, R.A.; Nouri, M.K.; Bayu, W.; et al. Integrated soil fertility management in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Chivenge, P.; Vanlauwe, B.; Six, J. Does the combined application of organic and mineral nutrient sources influence maize productivity? A meta-analysis. Plant Soil 2011, 342, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Anderson, G.C.; Pathan, S.; Hall, D.J.M.; Sharma, R.; Easton, J. Short- and Long-Term Effects of Lime and Gypsum Applications on Acid Soils in a Water-Limited Environment: 3. Soil Solution Chemistry. Agronomy 2021, 11, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Fu, B.; Chen, L.; Huang, H.; Qu, P.; Wei, Z. Impacts of crop residues on soil health: A review. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2021, 33, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wortmann, C.S.; Sones, K.R. (Eds.) Fertilizer Use Optimization in SUB-SAHARAN Africa; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  124. Kibunja, C.N.; Ndungu-Magiroi, K.W.; Wamae, D.K.; Mwangi, T.J.; Nafuma, L.; Koech, M.N.; Ademba, J.; Kitonyo, E.M. Optimizing fertilizer use within the context of integrated soil fertility management in Kenya. In Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; MacCarthy, D.S.; Vlek, P.L.G.; Safo, E.Y. Simulating impact of seasonal climatic variation on the response of maize (Zea mays L.) to inorganic fertilizer in sub-humid Ghana. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2012, 94, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Manchadi, A.; Vlek, P.G. Impacts of climate change and climate variability on maize yield under rainfed conditions in the sub-humid zone of Ghana: A scenario analysis using APSIM. West Afr. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 27, 108–126. [Google Scholar]
  127. Sileshi, G.W.; Jama, B.; Vanlauwe, B.; Negassa, W.; Harawa, R.; Kiwia, A.; Kimani, D. Nutrient use efficiency and crop yield response to the combined application of cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 113, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Fofana, B.; Wopereis, M.C.S.; Bationo, A.; Breman, H.; Mando, A. Millet nutrient use efficiency as affected by natural soil fertility, mineral fertilizer use and rainfall in the West African Sahel. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 81, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wang, X.; Fan, J.; ** systems: Challenges and strategic approaches. In Improving the Profitability, Sus-Tainability and Efficiency of Nutrients through Site Specific Fertilizer Recommendations in West Africa Agro-Ecosystems; Bationo, A., Ngaradoum, D., Youl, S., Lompo, F., Fening, J.O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 25–50. [Google Scholar]
  130. Nyamangara, J.; Bergström, L.F.; Piha, M.I.; Giller, K.E. Fertilizer use efficiency and nitrate leaching in a tropical sandy soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Hammed, T.B.; Oloruntoba, E.O.; Ana, G.R.E.E. Enhancing growth and yield of crops with nutrient-enriched organic fertilizer at wet and dry seasons in ensuring climate-smart agriculture. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Akande, M.O.; Adedira, J.A.; Oluwatoyinbo, F.I. Effects of rock phosphate amended with poultry manure on soil available P and yield of maize and cowpea. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2005, 4, 444–448. [Google Scholar]
  133. Sharif, M.; Arif, M.; Burni, T.; Khan, F.; Jan, B.; Khan, I. Growth and phosphorus uptake of sorghum plants in salt affected soil as affected by organic materials composted with rock phosphate. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 173–180. [Google Scholar]
  134. Herrera-Estrella, L. Transgenic plants for tropical regions: Some considerations about their development and their transfer to the small farmer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 5978–5981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Daspute, A.A.; Sadhukhan, A.; Tokizawa, M.; Kobayashi, Y.; Panda, S.K.; Koyama, H. Transcriptional regulation of aluminum-tolerance genes in higher plants: Clarifying the underlying molecular mechanisms. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Arunakumara, K.K.I.U.; Walpola, B.C.; Yoon, M.-H. Aluminum toxicity and tolerance mechanism in cereals and legumes—A review. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2013, 56, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kobayashi, Y.; Hoekenga, O.A.; Itoh, H.; Nakashima, M.; Saito, S.; Shaff, J.E.; Maron, L.G.; Piñeros, M.A.; Kochian, L.V.; Koyama, H. Characterization of AtALMT1 Expression in aluminum-inducible malate release and its role for rhizotoxic stress tolerance in arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2007, 145, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kochian, L.V.; Piñeros, M.A.; Liu, J.; Magalhaes, J.V. Plant adaptation to acid soils: The molecular basis for crop aluminum resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2015, 66, 571–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Daspute, A.A.; Kobayashi, Y.; Panda, S.K.; Fakrudin, B.; Kobayashi, Y.; Tokizawa, M.; Iuchi, S.; Choudhary, A.K.; Yamamoto, Y.Y.; Koyama, H. Characterization of CcSTOP1; a C2H2-type transcription factor regulates Al tolerance gene in pigeonpea. Planta 2018, 247, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kochian, L.V. Cellular mechanisms of aluminum toxicity and resistance in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1995, 46, 237–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kobayashi, Y.; Kobayashi, Y.; Sugimoto, M.; Lakshmanan, V.; Iuchi, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Bais, H.P.; Koyama, H. Characterization of the complex regulation of AtALMT1 expression in response to phytohormones and other inducers. Plant Physiol. 2013, 162, 732–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Sasaki, T.; Yamamoto, Y.; Ezaki, B.; Katsuhara, M.; Ahn, S.J.; Ryan, P.R.; Delhaize, E.; Matsumoto, H. A wheat gene encoding an aluminum-activated malate transporter. Plant J. 2004, 37, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Hoekenga, O.A.; Maron, L.G.; Pineros, M.A.; Cançado, G.M.; Shaff, J.; Kobayashi, Y.; Ryan, P.R.; Dong, B.; Delhaize, E.; Sasaki, T.; et al. AtALMT1, which encodes a malate transporter, is identified as one of several genes critical for aluminum tolerance in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 9738–9743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Ligaba, A.; Katsuhara, M.; Ryan, P.R.; Shibasaka, M.; Matsumoto, H. The BnALMT1 and BnALMT2 genes from rape encode aluminum-activated malate transporters that enhance the aluminum resistance of plant cells. Plant Physiol. 2006, 142, 1294–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Das, S.; Ganesan, M. Aluminum induced malate transporter (ALMT1) is regulating the Aluminum stress tolerance responses of mungbean seedlings. Plant Gene 2022, 32, 100388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Furukawa, J.; Yamaji, N.; Wang, H.; Mitani, N.; Murata, Y.; Sato, K.; Katsuhara, M.; Takeda, K.; Ma, J.F. An aluminum-activated citrate transporter in barley. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007, 48, 1081–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Magalhaes, J.V.; Liu, J.; Guimarães, C.T.; Lana, U.G.P.; Alves, V.M.C.; Wang, Y.-H.; E Schaffert, R.; A Hoekenga, O.; A Piñeros, M.; E Shaff, J.; et al. A gene in the multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) family confers aluminum tolerance in sorghum. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39, 1156–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Ribeiro, A.P.; Vinecky, F.; Duarte, K.E.; Santiago, T.R.; Casari, R.A.d.C.N.; Hell, A.F.; da Cunha, B.A.D.B.; Martins, P.K.; Centeno, D.d.C.; Molinari, P.A.d.O.; et al. Enhanced aluminum tolerance in sugarcane: Evaluation of SbMATE overexpression and genome-wide identification of ALMTs in Saccharum spp. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Miyasaka, S.C.; Buta, J.G.; Howell, R.K.; Foy, C.D. Mechanism of aluminum tolerance in snapbeans: Root exudation of citric acid. Plant Physiol. 1991, 96, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Barros, V.A.; Chandnani, R.; de Sousa, S.M.; Maciel, L.S.; Tokizawa, M.; Guimaraes, C.T.; Magalhaes, J.V.; Kochian, L.V. Root adaptation via common genetic factors conditioning tolerance to multiple stresses for crops cultivated on acidic tropical soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 565339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Iuchi, S.; Koyama, H.; Iuchi, A.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kitabayashi, S.; Ikka, T.; Hirayama, T.; Shinozaki, K.; Kobayashi, M.; Kobayashi, Y.; et al. Zinc finger protein STOP1 is critical for proton tolerance in Arabidopsis and coregulates a key gene in aluminum tolerance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 9900–9905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Tokizawa, M.; Kobayashi, Y.; Saito, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Iuchi, S.; Nomoto, M.; Tada, Y.; Yamamoto, Y.Y.; Koyama, H. Sensitive to proton rhizotoxicity1, calmodulin binding transcription activator2, and other transcription factors are involved in aluminum-activated malate transporter1 expression. Plant Physiol. 2015, 167, 991–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Nakano, Y.; Kusunoki, K.; Maruyama, H.; Enomoto, T.; Tokizawa, M.; Iuchi, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Kochian, L.V.; Koyama, H.; Kobayashi, Y. A single-population GWAS identified AtMATE expression level polymorphism caused by promoter variants is associated with variation in aluminum tolerance in a local Arabidopsis population. Plant Direct 2020, 4, e00250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Ohyama, Y.; Ito, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Ikka, T.; Morita, A.; Kobayashi, M.; Imaizumi, R.; Aoki, T.; Komatsu, K.; Sakata, Y.; et al. Characterization of AtSTOP1 orthologous genes in tobacco and other plant species. Plant Physiol. 2013, 162, 1937–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Gao, J.; Yan, S.; Yu, H.; Zhan, M.; Guan, K.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Z. Sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) SbSTOP1 activates the transcription of a β-1,3-glucanase gene to reduce callose deposition under Al toxicity: A novel pathway for Al tolerance in plants. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2019, 83, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Koyama, H.; Wu, L.; Agrahari, R.K.; Kobayashi, Y. STOP1 regulatory system: Centered on multiple stress tolerance and cellular nutrient management. Mol. Plant 2021, 14, 1615–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Sadhukhan, A.; Kobayashi, Y.; Iuchi, S.; Koyama, H. Synergistic and antagonistic pleiotropy of STOP1 in stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Nájar, E. Characterization of the Maize Protein ZmSTOP1 and Its Role in Drought Stress Response. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  159. Fontecha, G. Tolerancia al Aluminio en Centeno “(Secale cereale L.)” Mediada Por el Gen del Transportador de Malato ScALMT1. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  160. Chen, Q.; Wu, K.-H.; Wang, P.; Yi, J.; Li, K.-Z.; Yu, Y.-X.; Chen, L.-M. Overexpression of MsALMT1, from the aluminum-sensitive medicago sativa, enhances malate exudation and aluminum resistance in tobacco. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2013, 31, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Chen, Z.C.; Yokosho, K.; Kashino, M.; Zhao, F.; Yamaji, N.; Ma, J.F. Adaptation to acidic soil is achieved by increased numbers of cis-acting elements regulating ALMT1 expression in Holcus lanatus. Plant J. 2013, 76, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Liu, J.; Magalhaes, J.V.; Shaff, J.; Kochian, L.V. Aluminum-activated citrate and malate transporters from the MATE and ALMT families function independently to confer Arabidopsis aluminum tolerance. Plant J. 2009, 57, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Eticha, D.; Zahn, M.; Bremer, M.; Yang, Z.; Rangel, A.F.; Rao, I.M.; Horst, W.J. Transcriptomic analysis reveals differential gene expression in response to aluminium in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Yokosho, K.; Yamaji, N.; Ma, J.F. Isolation and characterisation of two MATE genes in rye. Funct. Plant Biol. 2010, 37, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Maron, L.G.; Piñeros, M.A.; Guimarães, C.T.; Magalhaes, J.V.; Pleiman, J.K.; Mao, C.; Shaff, J.; Belicuas, S.N.; Kochian, L.V. Two functionally distinct members of the MATE (multi-drug and toxic compound extrusion) family of transporters potentially underlie two major aluminum tolerance QTLs in maize. Plant J. 2010, 61, 728–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Du, H.; Ryan, P.R.; Liu, C.; Li, H.; Hu, W.; Yan, W.; Huang, Y.; He, W.; Luo, B.; Zhang, X.; et al. ZmMATE6 from maize encodes a citrate transporter that enhances aluminum tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Sci. 2021, 311, 111016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yokosho, K.; Yamaji, N.; Ma, J.F. An Al-inducible MATE gene is involved in external detoxification of Al in rice. Plant J. 2011, 68, 1061–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Yokosho, K.; Yamaji, N.; Fujii-Kashino, M.; Ma, J.F. Retrotransposon-mediated aluminum tolerance through enhanced expression of the citrate transporter OsFRDL4. Plant Physiol. 2016, 172, 2327–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Sawaki, Y.; Kihara-Doi, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Nishikubo, N.; Kawazu, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Koyama, H.; Sato, S. Characterization of Al-responsive citrate excretion and citrate-transporting MATEs in Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Planta 2013, 237, 979–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Tovkach, A.; Ryan, P.R.; Richardson, A.E.; Lewis, D.C.; Rathjen, T.M.; Ramesh, S.; Tyerman, S.D.; Delhaize, E. Transposon-mediated alteration of TaMATE1B expression in wheat confers constitutive citrate efflux from root apices. Plant Physiol. 2013, 161, 880–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Liu, M.Y.; Chen, W.W.; Xu, J.M.; Fan, W.; Yang, J.L.; Zheng, S.J. The role of VuMATE1 expression in aluminium-inducible citrate secretion in rice bean (Vigna umbellata) roots. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 1795–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Wu, X.; Li, R.; Shi, J.; Wang, J.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, H.; **ng, Y.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, N.; Guo, Y.-D. Brassica oleracea MATE encodes a citrate transporter and enhances aluminum tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 1426–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Fan, W.; Xu, J.-M.; Lou, H.-Q.; **ao, C.; Chen, W.-W.; Yang, J.-L. Physiological and molecular analysis of aluminium-induced organic acid anion secretion from grain amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus L.) Roots. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Lei, G.J.; Yokosho, K.; Yamaji, N.; Ma, J.F. Two MATE transporters with different subcellular localization are involved in al tolerance in buckwheat. Plant Cell Physiol. 2017, 58, 2179–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Wang, J.; Hou, Q.; Li, P.; Yang, L.; Sun, X.; Benedito, V.A.; Wen, J.; Chen, B.; Mysore, K.S.; Zhao, J. Diverse functions of multidrug and toxin extrusion (MATE) transporters in citric acid efflux and metal homeostasis in Medicago truncatula. Plant J. 2017, 90, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Li, N.; Meng, H.; **ng, H.; Liang, L.; Zhao, X.; Luo, K. Genome-wide analysis of MATE transporters and molecular characterization of aluminum resistance in Populus. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 5669–5683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Ribeiro, A.P.; de Souza, W.R.; Martins, P.K.; Vinecky, F.; Duarte, K.E.; Basso, M.F.; da Cunha, B.A.D.B.; Campanha, R.B.; de Oliveira, P.A.; Centeno, D.C.; et al. Overexpression of BdMATE gene improves aluminum tolerance in Setaria viridis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Ma, Q.; Yi, R.; Li, L.; Liang, Z.; Zeng, T.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, H.; Zhang, X.; Yin, X.; Cai, Z.; et al. GsMATE encoding a multidrug and toxic compound extrusion transporter enhances aluminum tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Zhou, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gong, L.; Chen, A.; Liu, N.; Li, S.; Sun, H.; Yang, Z.; You, J. Functional characterization of three MATE genes in relation to aluminum-induced citrate efflux from soybean root. Plant Soil 2019, 443, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Cui, W.; Gong, L.; He, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Meng, X.; Yang, Z.; You, J. Characterization of GmMATE13 in its contribution of citrate efflux and aluminum resistance in soybeans. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1027560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Qiu, S.; Zhu, Z.; He, B. Fmask 4.0: Improved cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsats 4–8 and Sentinel-2 imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 231, 111205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Yang, Z.; Zhao, P.; Peng, W.; Liu, Z.; **e, G.; Ma, X.; An, Z.; An, F. Cloning, Expression Analysis, and Functional Characterization of Candidate Oxalate Transporter Genes of HbOT1 and HbOT2 from Rubber Tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Cells 2022, 11, 3793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Grisel, N.; Zoller, S.; Künzli-Gontarczyk, M.; Lampart, T.; Münsterkötter, M.; Brunner, I.; Bovet, L.; Métraux, J.-P.; Sperisen, C. Transcriptome responses to aluminum stress in roots of aspen (Populus tremula). BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Hao, J.; Peng, A.; Li, Y.; Zuo, H.; Li, P.; Wang, J.; Yu, K.; Liu, C.; Zhao, S.; Wan, X.; et al. Tea plant roots respond to aluminum-induced mineral nutrient imbalances by transcriptional regulation of multiple cation and anion transporters. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Guo, P.; Qi, Y.-P.; Yang, L.-T.; Lai, N.-W.; Ye, X.; Yang, Y.; Chen, L.-S. Root adaptive responses to aluminum-treatment revealed by RNA-Seq in two citrus species with different aluminum-tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Jiang, C.; Liu, L.; Li, X.; Han, R.; Wei, Y.; Yu, Y. Insights into aluminum-tolerance pathways in Stylosanthes as revealed by RNA-Seq analysis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Ito, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Yamamoto, Y.Y.; Koyama, H. Characterization of NtSTOP1-regulating genes in tobacco under aluminum stress. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 65, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Cardoso, T.B.; Pinto, R.T.; Paiva, L.V. Comprehensive characterization of the ALMT and MATE families on Populus trichocarpa and gene co-expression network analysis of its members during aluminium toxicity and phosphate starvation stresses. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Wang, Z.; Liu, L.; Su, H.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Xu, J.; Zhang, X.; Guo, Y.-D.; Zhang, N. Jasmonate and aluminum crosstalk in tomato: Identification and expression analysis of WRKYs and ALMTs during JA/Al-regulated root growth. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 154, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Singh, C.K.; Singh, D.; Sharma, S.; Chandra, S.; Taunk, J.; Konjengbam, N.S.; Singh, D.; Kumar, A.; Upadhyaya, K.C.; Pal, M. Morpho-physiological characterization coupled with expressional accord of exclusion mechanism in wild and cultivated lentil under aluminum stress. Protoplasma 2021, 258, 1029–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Duan, W.; Lu, F.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, J.; Du, X.; Hu, Y.; Yan, Y. Genome-wide identification and characterisation of wheat MATE genes reveals their roles in aluminium tolerance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Jia, Y.; Pradeep, K.; Vance, W.H.; Zhang, X.; Weir, B.; Wei, H.; Deng, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhao, C.; et al. Identification of two chickpea multidrug and toxic compound extrusion transporter genes transcriptionally upregulated upon aluminum treatment in root tips. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 909045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Sun, W.; Wu, G.; Xu, H.; Wei, J.; Chen, Y.; Yao, M.; Zhan, J.; Yan, J.; Chen, H.; Bu, T.; et al. Malate-mediated CqMADS68 enhances aluminum tolerance in quinoa seedlings through interaction with CqSTOP6, CqALMT6 and CqWRKY88. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 439, 129630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Barnabás, B.; Jäger, K.; Fehér, A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 2008, 31, 11–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Zandalinas, S.I.; Rivero, R.M.; Martínez, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Arbona, V. Tolerance of citrus plants to the combination of high temperatures and drought is associated to the increase in transpiration modulated by a reduction in abscisic acid levels. BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  197. Bray, E.A. Classification of genes differentially expressed during water-deficit stress in Arabidopsis thaliana: An analysis using microarray and differential expression data. Ann. Bot. 2002, 89, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Saha, B.; Borovskii, G.; Panda, S.K. Alternative oxidase and plant stress tolerance. Plant Signal. Behav. 2016, 11, e1256530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Salehi-Lisar, S.Y.; Bakhshayeshan-Agdam, H. Drought stress in plants: Causes, consequences, and tolerance. Drought stress tolerance in plants. Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  200. Salehi-Lisar, S.Y.; Bakhshayeshan-Agdam, H. Agronomic crop responses and tolerance to drought stress. In Agronomic Crops: Volume 3: Stress Responses and Tolerance; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 63–91. [Google Scholar]
  201. Reymond, P.; Weber, H.; Damond, M.; Farmer, E.E. Differential gene expression in response to mechanical wounding and insect feeding in arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2000, 12, 707–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Seki, M.; Narusaka, M.; Abe, H.; Kasuga, M.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Carninci, P.; Hayashizaki, Y.; Shinozaki, K. Monitoring the expression pattern of 1300 arabidopsis genes under drought and cold stresses by using a full-length cDNA microarray. Plant Cell 2001, 13, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Fang, Y.; **ong, L. General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2015, 72, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Kaur, G.; Asthir, B. Molecular responses to drought stress in plants. Biol. Plant. 2017, 61, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Zandalinas, S.I.; Balfagón, D.; Arbona, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A.; Inupakutika, M.A.; Mittler, R. ABA is required for the accumulation of APX1 and MBF1c during a combination of water deficit and heat stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 5381–5390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Keleş, Y.; Öncel, I. Response of antioxidative defence system to temperature and water stress combinations in wheat seedlings. Plant Sci. 2002, 163, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Rollins, J.A.; Habte, E.; Templer, S.E.; Colby, T.; Schmidt, J.; von Korff, M. Leaf proteome alterations in the context of physiological and morphological responses to drought and heat stress in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 3201–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Zandalinas, S.I.; Mittler, R.; Balfagón, D.; Arbona, V.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. Plant adaptations to the combination of drought and high temperatures. Physiol. Plant. 2018, 162, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Chaves, M.M.; Marôco, J.P.; Pereira, J.S. Understanding plant responses to drought—From genes to the whole plant. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Badigannavar, A.; Teme, N.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Li, G.; Vaksmann, M.; Viana, V.E.; Ganapathi, T.R.; Sarsu, F. Physiological, genetic and molecular basis of drought resilience in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 23, 670–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Tiwari, Y.K.; Yadav, S.K. High temperature stress tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.): Physiological and molecular mechanisms. J. Plant Biol. 2019, 62, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Yadav, S.K.; Tiwari, Y.K.; Kumar, D.P.; Shanker, A.K.; Lakshmi, N.J.; Vanaja, M.; Maheswari, M. Genotypic variation in physiological traits under high temperature stress in maize. Agric. Res. 2015, 5, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Li, J.; Zhao, S.; Yu, X.; Du, W.; Li, H.; Sun, Y.; Sun, H.; Ruan, C. Role of Xanthoceras sorbifolium MYB44 in tolerance to combined drought and heat stress via modulation of stomatal closure and ROS homeostasis. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 162, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Pandey, P.; Ramegowda, V.; Senthil-Kumar, M. Shared and unique responses of plants to multiple individual stresses and stress combinations: Physiological and molecular mechanisms. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Johnson, S.M.; Lim, F.-L.; Finkler, A.; Fromm, H.; Slabas, A.R.; Knight, M.R. Transcriptomic analysis of Sorghum bicolor responding to combined heat and drought stress. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Aprile, A.; Havlickova, L.; Panna, R.; Marè, C.; Borrelli, G.M.; Marone, D.; Perrotta, C.; Rampino, P.; De Bellis, L.; Curn, V.; et al. Different stress responsive strategies to drought and heat in two durum wheat cultivars with contrasting water use efficiency. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Casaretto, J.A.; El-Kereamy, A.; Zeng, B.; Stiegelmeyer, S.M.; Chen, X.; Bi, Y.-M.; Rothstein, S.J. Expression of OsMYB55 in maize activates stress-responsive genes and enhances heat and drought tolerance. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Rampino, P.; Mita, G.; Fasano, P.; Borrelli, G.M.; Aprile, A.; Dalessandro, G.; De Bellis, L.; Perrotta, C. Novel durum wheat genes up-regulated in response to a combination of heat and drought stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 56, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Baillo, E.H.; Kimotho, R.N.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, P. Transcription factors associated with abiotic and biotic stress tolerance and their potential for crops improvement. Genes 2019, 10, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Bihani, P.; Char, B.; Bhargava, S. Transgenic expression of sorghum DREB2 in rice improves tolerance and yield under water limitation. J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 149, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. El-Esawi, M.A.; Alayafi, A.A. Overexpression of StDREB2 transcription factor enhances drought stress tolerance in cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Genes 2019, 10, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Kumar, A.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, U.; Suravajhala, P.; Gajula, M.P. Functional and structural insights into novel DREB1A transcription factors in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A molecular modeling approach. Comput. Biol. Chem. 2016, 64, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Yang, Y.; Al-Baidhani, H.H.J.; Harris, J.; Riboni, M.; Li, Y.; Mazonka, I.; Bazanova, N.; Chirkova, L.; Hussain, S.S.; Hrmova, M.; et al. DREB/CBF expression in wheat and barley using the stress-inducible promoters of HD-Zip I genes: Impact on plant development, stress tolerance and yield. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 829–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 00285 g001
Figure 1. Model for sustainable agricultural production adapted for tropical regions, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. ISFM, integrated soil fertility management; IPNM, integrated plant nutrition management; EM, efficient management. The Four Rs’ Law (right time, right source, right rate, and right place) in fertilizer input indicates the practices that must be promoted (black arrow) and supervised (dotted arrow) by the government through private, public, and semi-private sectors to ensure food security. Farmers can also co-operate with these sectors for sustainable crop production.
Figure 1. Model for sustainable agricultural production adapted for tropical regions, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. ISFM, integrated soil fertility management; IPNM, integrated plant nutrition management; EM, efficient management. The Four Rs’ Law (right time, right source, right rate, and right place) in fertilizer input indicates the practices that must be promoted (black arrow) and supervised (dotted arrow) by the government through private, public, and semi-private sectors to ensure food security. Farmers can also co-operate with these sectors for sustainable crop production.
Agriculture 14 00285 g001
Table 1. Major crops sensitivity level to abiotic stresses in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Table 1. Major crops sensitivity level to abiotic stresses in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Abiotic Stresses Major CropsReferences
Soil acidity and Al ToxicitySensitive
Barley[27]
Maize[62]
Wheat[38]
Soybean, Peanut[48]
Less sensitive
Pineapple, Sweet potato,[48]
Cassava, Yam[50]
Fe toxicityRice (lowland)[63,64]
Heat and droughtSensitive
Soybean, Peanut[65,66]
Wheat[67]
Barley[68]
Rice[64]
Less sensitive
Yam, Cassava[69]
Sweet potato[70]
Sorghum[71]
Finger Millet[72,73]
Climate changeSensitive
Maize, Rice[74]
Wheat[67]
Barley[75]
Less sensitive
Cassava, Millet, Sweet potato[74,76]
Sorghum[75]
Table 2. Evaluation of different types of fertilizer application depending on crops in SSA.
Table 2. Evaluation of different types of fertilizer application depending on crops in SSA.
AEZCropsFertilizer Use
Semi-arid zoneCereals
maize (Zea mays), millet (Panicum milliaceum), sorghum. (Sorghum bicolor), soybean (Glycine max),
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)
Root tubers
cassava (Manihot esculenta)
Perennial crops
cotton (Gossypium herbaceum)		SI+N [107]
CA+mulch+Manure [108]
Manure [109]
Biological N-fixation (Acacia mangium) [110]
Urea/DAP/TSP/KCl [111]
NPK [112]
Sulfur(S) [113]
ISFM [114]
Sub-humid zoneCereals
rice (Oryza sativa), maize (Zea mays), millet (Panicum milliaceum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), soybean (Glycine max), bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
Root tubers
cassava (Manihot esculenta), yam (Dioscorea alata), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)
Perennial crops
cotton (Gossypium herbaceum), cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale), cocoa (Theobroma cacao), coffee (Coffea canephora), sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum),		Lime and Gypsum [115,116,117]
NT+NPK/CT+NPK+Manure/NT+NPK+Manure) [118,119,120]
Biochar [121]
NPK+Ca+Zn+B/N+Manure [122,123]
Biological N-fixation (Acacia mangium, Casuarina equisetifolia [110]
ISFM [124,125,126,127]
NPK/Urea/DAP/TSP/KCl/ISFM [111]
INPM [114,128]
Humid zoneCereals
rice (Oryza sativa), maize (Zea mays) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)
Root tubers
cassava (Manihot esculenta), yam (Dioscorea alata)
Perennial crops
rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis), oil palm tree (Elaeis guineensis), cocoa (Theobroma cacao), coffee (Coffea canephora), plantain banana (Musa paradisiaca), desert banana (Musa acuminata), mango (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana), ananas (Ananas comosus)		Lime and Gypsum [115,116,117,129]
INPM [114,128]
Crop residue [130]
Table 3. Transporters responsible for Al-responsive organic acid secretion from roots in various plants.
Table 3. Transporters responsible for Al-responsive organic acid secretion from roots in various plants.
Plant SpeciesOrganic Acid TransporterReference
Malate secretion
Triticum aestivumTaALMT1[156]
Arabidopsis thalianaAtALMT1[157]
Brassica napusBnALMT1, 2[158]
Secale cerealeScALMT1[173]
Medicago sativaMsALMT1[174]
Holcus lanatusHlALMT1[175]
Vigna radiataVrALMT1[159]
Citrate secretion
Sorghum bicolorSbMATE[161]
Hordeum vulgareHvMATE (HvAACT1)[160]
Arabidopsis thalianaAtMATE[176]
Phaseolus vulgarisMATE-a, -b[177]
Secale cerealeScMATE2 (ScFRDL2)[178]
Zea maysZmMATE1, ZmMATE6[179,180]
Oryza sativaOsFRDL4, OsFRDL2 (OsMATE2)[181,182]
Eucalyptus camaldulensisEcMATE1[183]
Triticum aestivumTaMATE1B[184]
Vigna umbellataVuMATE1[185]
Brassica oleraceaBoMATE[186]
Amaranthus hypochondriacusAhMATE1[187]
Fagopyrum esculentumFeMATE1[188]
Medicago truncatulaMtMATE66[189]
Populus trichocarpaPtrMATE1[190]
Brachypodium distachyonBdMATE[191]
Cajanus cajanCcMATE1[153]
Glycine sojaGsMATE[192]
Glycine maxGmMATE75, 79, 87, GmMATE13[193,194]
Arachis hypogaeaAhMATE (AhFRDL1)[195]
Oxalic secretion
Hevea brasiliensisHbOT1, 2[196]
Al-responsive transcriptome
Populus tremulaMATE[197]
Camellia sinensisMATEs, ALMTs, CsMATE1,CsALMT1[190,198]
Citrus sinensisMATEs, ALMTs[199]
StylosanthesMATE family[200]
Nicotiana tabacumNtMATE[201]
Populus trichocarpaPoptrALMT10, 54[202]
Solanum lycopersicumSlALMT3[203]
Saccharum officinarumALMT2,4,5,7,9,11[162]
Lens culinarisALMT-1, MATE-a,b,c[204]
Triticum aestivumTaMATE85,100,114[205]
Cicer arietinumCaMATE2,4[206]
Chenopodium quinoaCqALMT6[207]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kouame, K.P.; Agrahari, R.K.; Konjengbam, N.S.; Koyama, H.; Kobayashi, Y. Ability of Nutrient Management and Molecular Physiology Advancements to Overcome Abiotic Stress: A Study on Sub-Saharan African Crops. Agriculture 2024, 14, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020285

AMA Style

Kouame KP, Agrahari RK, Konjengbam NS, Koyama H, Kobayashi Y. Ability of Nutrient Management and Molecular Physiology Advancements to Overcome Abiotic Stress: A Study on Sub-Saharan African Crops. Agriculture. 2024; 14(2):285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020285

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kouame, Koffi Pacome, Raj Kishan Agrahari, Noren Singh Konjengbam, Hiroyuki Koyama, and Yuriko Kobayashi. 2024. "Ability of Nutrient Management and Molecular Physiology Advancements to Overcome Abiotic Stress: A Study on Sub-Saharan African Crops" Agriculture 14, no. 2: 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020285

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop