4.8 Article

Combined impacts of Si-rich rice residues and flooding extent on grain As and Cd in rice

Journal

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 128, Issue -, Pages 301-309

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.060

Keywords

Rice husk; Charred husk; Water management; Trace metal(loid)s

Funding

  1. Delaware Economic Development Office [16A00430]
  2. USDA NIFA Grant [2016-67013-24846, 2018-67019-27796]
  3. National Science Foundation [1350580]
  4. CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education, Brazil
  5. NIFA [810774, 2016-67013-24846] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increasing plant-availability of Si through soil amendment of Si-rich rice residues can decrease inorganic As without affecting Cd levels in grain under flooded soil conditions. However, the impacts of Si amendments on Cd and As uptake by rice under different flooding extents have not been reported. We investigated the effects of different flooding extent on As and Cd uptake by rice and accumulation in grain in well-weathered soil amended with Si-rich rice husk (Husk) or mixed charred/ashed rice husk (Ash). Our results show that Husk and to a lesser extent Ash amendments decreased grain As under both flooded (similar to 40% and 20% decrease, respectively) and nonflooded (similar to 75% decrease) conditions due to increased Si. Under flooded conditions grain As and yield is higher, and Husk amendment additionally decreased grain inorganic As by similar to 45%. Under nonflooded conditions grain Cd is higher and yield is lower, and Ash amendment decreased grain, husk, and straw Cd by similar to 40-50% not due to Si, but due to increased aboveground biomass and an increase in soil pH, which helped to retain Cd in soil. These data illustrate that rice residue addition to paddy soil can lower human health risk under both flooded and nonflooded conditions without affecting grain Zn and Fe.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available