Plants are often subjected to periods of soil and atmospheric water deficits during their life cycle as well as, in many areas of the globe, to high soil salinity. Understanding how plants respond to drought, salt and co-occurring stresses can play a major role in stabilizing crop performance under drought and saline conditions and in the protection of natural vegetation. Photosynthesis, together with cell growth, is among the primary processes to be affected by water or salt stress. The effects of drought and salt stresses on photosynthesis are either direct (as the diffusion limitations through the stomata and the mesophyll and the alterations in photosynthetic metabolism) or secondary, such as the oxidative stress arising from the superimposition of multiple stresses. The carbon balance of a plant during a period of salt/water stress and recovery may depend as much on the velocity and degree of photosynthetic recovery, as it depends on the degree and velocity of photosynthesis decline during water depletion. Current knowledge about physiological limitations to photosynthetic recovery after different intensities of water and salt stress is still scarce. From the large amount of data available on transcript-profiling studies in plants subjected to drought and salt it is becoming apparent that plants perceive and respond to these stresses by quickly altering gene expression in parallel with physiological and biochemical alterations; this occurs even under mild to moderate stress conditions. From a recent comprehensive study that compared salt and drought stress it is apparent that both stresses led to down-regulation of some photosynthetic genes, with most of the changes being small (ratio threshold lower than 1) possibly reflecting the mild stress imposed. When compared with drought, salt stress affected more genes and more intensely, possibly reflecting the combined effects of dehydration and osmotic stress in salt-stressed plants.

Plants are often subjected to periods of soil and atmospheric water deficit during their life cycle. The frequency of such phenomena is likely to increase in the future even outside today’s arid/semi‐arid regions. Plant responses to water scarcity are complex, involving deleterious and/or adaptive changes, and under field conditions these responses can be synergistically or antagonistically modified by the superimposition of other stresses. This complexity is illustrated using examples of woody and herbaceous species mostly from Mediterranean‐type ecosystems, with strategies ranging from drought‐avoidance, as in winter/spring annuals or in deep‐rooted perennials, to the stress resistance of sclerophylls. Differences among species that can be traced to different capacities for water acquisition, rather than to differences in metabolism at a given water status, are described. Changes in the root : shoot ratio or the temporary accumulation of reserves in the stem are accompanied by alterations in nitrogen and carbon metabolism, the fine regulation of which is still largely unknown. At the leaf level, the dissipation of excitation energy through processes other than photosynthetic C‐metabolism is an important defence mechanism under conditions of water stress and is accompanied by down‐regulation of photochemistry and, in the longer term, of carbon metabolism.

Photosynthesis is one of the key processes to be affected by water deficits, via decreased CO₂ diffusion to the chloroplast and metabolic constraints. The relative impact of those limitations varies with the intensity of the stress, the occurrence (or not) of superimposed stresses, and the species we are dealing with. Total plant carbon uptake is further reduced due to the concomitant or even earlier inhibition of growth. Leaf carbohydrate status, altered directly by water deficits or indirectly (via decreased growth), acts as a metabolic signal although its role is not totally clear. Other relevant signals acting under water deficits comprise: abscisic acid (ABA), with an impact on stomatal aperture and the regulation at the transcription level of a large number of genes related to plant stress response; other hormones that act either concurrently (brassinosteroids, jasmonates, and salycilic acid) or antagonistically (auxin, cytokinin, or ethylene) with ABA; and redox control of the energy balance of photosynthetic cells deprived of CO₂ by stomatal closure. In an attempt to systematize current knowledge on the complex network of interactions and regulation of photosynthesis in plants subjected to water deficits, a meta-analysis has been performed covering >450 papers published in the last 15 years. This analysis shows the interplay of sugars, reactive oxygen species (ROS), and hormones with photosynthetic responses to drought, involving many metabolic events. However, more significantly it highlights (i) how fragmented and often non-comparable the results are and (ii) how hard it is to relate molecular events to plant physiological status, namely photosynthetic activity, and to stress intensity. Indeed, the same data set usually does not integrate these different levels of analysis. Considering these limitations, it was hard to find a general trend, particularly concerning molecular responses to drought, with the exception of the genes ABI1 and ABI3. These genes, irrespective of the stress type (acute versus chronic) and intensity, show a similar response to water shortage in the two plant systems analysed (Arabidopsis and barley). Both are associated with ABA-mediated metabolic responses to stress and the regulation of stomatal aperture. Under drought, ABI1 transcription is up-regulated while ABI3 is usually down-regulated. Recently ABI3 has been hypothesized to be essential for successful drought recovery.

Water deficit (WD) in Lupinus albus L. brings about tissue‐specific responses that are dependent on stress intensity. Carbohydrate metabolism is very sensitive to changes in plant water status. Six days from withholding water (DAW), sucrose, glucose and fructose levels of the leaf blade had already increased over 5‐fold, and the activities of SS and INV_A had increased c. 1.5–2 times. From 9 DAW on, when stress intensity was more pronounced, these effects were reversed with fructose and glucose concentrations as well as INV_A activity dropping in parallel. The stem (specifically the stele) responded to the stress intensification with striking increases in the concentration of sugars, N and S, and in the induction of thaumatin‐like‐protein and an increase in chitinase and peroxidase. At 13 DAW, the plants lost most of the leaves but on rewatering they fully recovered. Thus, the observed changes appear to contribute to a general mechanism of survival under drought, the stem playing a key role in that process.