4.7 Article

Uptake and accumulation of phosphorus by dominant plant species growing in a phosphorus mining area

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 171, Issue 1-3, Pages 542-550

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.034

Keywords

Phosphorus mine areas; Accumulation; Ecotypes; Phosphorus concentration

Funding

  1. Sichuan Youth Science & Technology Foundation [06ZQ026-020]
  2. Youth Foundation of the Sichuan Education Bureau [200613009]
  3. Key Project from Sichuan Education Bureau [2006A008]
  4. Open Research Fund Program from Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phosphorus accumulation potentials were investigated for 12 dominant plant species growing in a phosphorus mining area in Shifang, as well as their corresponding non-mining ecotypes growing in Ya'an, China. High phosphorus concentrations were observed in the seedling and flowering stages of two species, Pilea sinofasciata and Polygonum hydropiper, up to 16.23 and 8.59 g kg(-1), respectively, which were 3.4 and 7 times higher than in the non-mining ecotypes. Available phosphorus levels in the respective rhizosphere soils of these plants were 112.84 and 121.78 mg kg(-1), 12 and 4 times higher than in the non-rhizosphere soil. Phosphorus concentrations in shoots of the mining ecotypes of all 12 species were significantly negatively correlated with available phosphorus in the rhizosphere soils (p < 0.05), whereas a positive correlation was observed in the non-mining ecotypes. The biomass in shoot of the mining ecotype of P. hydropiper was nearly 2 times that in the non-mining ecotype. The results suggested that P. sinofasciata and R hydropiper were efficient candidates among the tested species for phosphorus accumulation in shoots, and that further studies should be conducted to investigate their potential to be adopted as phosphorus accumulators. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available