4.5 Article

Effects of different rootstocks on cadmium accumulation characteristics of the post-grafting generations of Galinsoga parviflora

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHYTOREMEDIATION
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 62-68

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15226514.2019.1644287

Keywords

Cadmium; different rootstocks; Galinsoga parviflora; hyperaccumulator; post-grafting generation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31560072]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A pot experiment was conducted to study the effects of different rootstocks on the cadmium (Cd) accumulation characteristics of the post-grafting generations of Cd-hyperaccumulator Galinsoga parviflora plants. Five treatments, ungrafted and G. parviflora seedlings grafted on the rootstocks of Kalimeris indica, Senecio scandens, Conyza canadensis, and Artemisia sieversiana, were utilized. The four rootstock grafts decreased the shoot biomass of the G. parviflora post-grafting generation compared with ungrafted. The K. indica and S. scandens grafts increased the Cd concentration in shoots of the G. parviflora post-grafting generation by 15.06% and 14.40%, respectively, compared with ungrafted, while the C. canadensis and A. sieversiana grafts had no significant effects. K. indica grafts increased the amount of Cd extracted by shoots of the G. parviflora post-grafting generation by 10.59% compared with ungrafted, while the other treatments resulted in decreases. Compared with ungrafted, the different rootstocks had no significant effects on the photosynthetic pigment content of the G. parviflora post-grafting generation, and only C. canadensis grafts increased the superoxide dismutase activity level, while only K. indica grafts increased the peroxidase activity level. Therefore, the K. indica rootstock could increase the phytoremediation capability of G. parviflora post-grafted plants grown in Cd-contaminated soil.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available