4.7 Article

Effect of Silica-Based Nanomaterials on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

Journal

NANOMATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 23, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano12234160

Keywords

silicon-based nanomaterials; rice; plant growth; seed germination

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The application of nanomaterials in agriculture has gained global attention. A study on the effects of silicon dioxide and silicon carbide nanomaterials on rice revealed that they can enhance plant growth and promote photosynthesis. However, high concentrations of sodium silicate have a negative impact on rice biomass.
The application of nanomaterials (NMs) in agriculture has become a global concern in recent years. However, studies on their effects on plants are still limited. Here, we conducted a seed germination experiment for 5 days and a hydroponics experiment for 14 days to study the effects of silicon dioxide NMs(nSiO(2)) and silicon carbide NMs(nSiC) (0,10, 50, 200 mg/L) on rice (Oryza sativa L.). Bulk SiO2 (bSiO(2)) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) were used as controls. The results showed that nSiO(2) and nSiC increased the shoot length (11-37%, 6-25%) and root length (17-87%, 59-207%) of germinating seeds, respectively, compared with the control. Similarly, inter-root exposure to nSiO(2), bSiO(2,) and nSiC improved the activity of aboveground catalase (10-55%, 31-34%, and 13-51%) and increased the content of trace elements magnesium, copper, and zinc, thus promoting the photosynthesis of rice. However, Na2SiO3 at a concentration of 200 mg/L reduced the aboveground and root biomass of rice by 27-51% and 4-17%, respectively. This may be because excess silicon not only inhibited the activity of root antioxidant enzymes but also disrupted the balance of mineral elements. This finding provides a new basis for the effect of silica-based NMs promotion on seed germination and rice growth.

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