4.7 Article

Microstructural and physiological responses to cadmium stress under different nitrogen forms in two contrasting Populus clones

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 169, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103897

Keywords

Cd stress; Nitrogen form; Sphytoremediation; Cd sequestration; Populus clones

Funding

  1. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LQ18C030004]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [31800507]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although nitrogen (N) influences plant response to cadmium (Cd) stress, little information has been suggested on how N forms affect Cd distribution and tolerance in Populus clones with different sensitivities to N deficiency. In this study, we examined physiological, chemical and microstructural traits involving in Cd accumulation, distribution and tolerance under different N forms (NH4+-N and NO3--N). We found that N limitation-insensitive clone Nanlin 1388 had stronger Cd tolerance than N limitation-sensitive clone Nanlin 895 under both N forms, which is associated with Cd elaborate arrangement in tissues and/or cellular compartments, as well as an enhanced antioxidation capacity. NH4+ supply significantly promoted Cd uptake and accumulation in leaves, especially in Nanlin 895, when compared to NO3- supply. Furthermore, NO3- and NH4+ differently regulated Cd distribution in leaves and roots of Nanlin 1388 and Nanlin 895. NO3- supply promoted Cd distribution in leaf epidermis, especially in the upper epidermis of leaf blades and veins in Nanlin 1388. In contrast, NH4+ induced more Cd distribution in the leaf lower epidermis and vascular tissues for Nanlin 895. These results collectively suggested that Nanlin1388 had stronger Cd tolerance, especially under NO3- supply, which provided new insights to engineer woody plants for phytoremediation.

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