4.7 Article

In situ phytostabilisation of heavy metal polluted soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with metal resistant plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 177, Issue 1-3, Pages 323-330

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.035

Keywords

Mine spill; In situ phytostabilisation; Phytoextraction; Legume; Bradyrhizobium; PGPR

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Environment
  2. INIA [RTA-2006-059-C02]
  3. [1.1-415/2005/2-B]
  4. [611/2006/1-1.1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work is the evaluation of metal phytostabilisation potential of Lupinus luteus inoculated with Bradyrhizobium sp. 750 and heavy metal resistant PGPRs (plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria), for in situ reclamation of multi-metal contaminated soil after a mine spill. Yellow lupines accumulated heavy metals mainly in roots (Cu, Cd and especially Pb were poorly translocated to shoots). This indicates a potential use of this plant in metal phytostabilisation. Furthermore, As accumulation was undetectable. On the other hand, zinc accumulation was 10-100 times higher than all other metals, both in roots and in shoots. Inoculation with Bradyrhizobium sp. 750 increased both biomass and nitrogen content, indicating that nitrogen fixation was effective in soils with moderate levels of contamination. Co-inoculation of lupines with a consortium of metal resistant PGPR (including Bradyrhizobium sp., Pseudomonas sp. and Ochrobactrum cytisi) produced an additional improvement of plant biomass. At the same time, a decrease in metal accumulation was observed, both in shoots and roots, which could be due to a protective effect exerted on plant rhizosphere. Our results indicate the usefulness of L luteus inoculated with a bacterial consortium of metal resistant PGPRs as a method for in situ reclamation of metal polluted soils. (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