4.7 Article

Zinc and copper uptake by plants under two transpiration rates.: Part I.: Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 138, Issue 3, Pages 538-547

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.06.005

Keywords

copper zinc; wheat; uptake; transpiration rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the environmental risk of irrigating crops with treated wastewater, an experiment as conducted using two growth chambers, each offering a different vapour pressure deficit (VPD) for high and low transpiration rates (TR), respectively, One of the two sets of 24 pots planted with 6 week old wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), was placed in each growth chamber, and irrigated in triplicates for 20 days with 8 Zn and Cu solutions (0 and 25 mg Zn I. combined with 0, 5, 15 and 30 mg Cu, L). Water losses from planted and non-planted pots served to measure evapo-transpiration and evaporation, respectively. Pots were monitored for Cu and Zn uptake by collecting three plants (shoot and grain) pots after 0, 10 and 20 days, and roots in each pot after 20 days, and analyzing these plant parts for dry mass, and Cu and Zn levels. Transpiration rate as not affected by any Cu Zn treatment, but Cu and Zn uptake increase with the time, irrigation solution level and higher TR, with the roots retaining Most Cu and Zn, compared to the shoot followed by the grain. For the shoot and grain, Cu had a significant synergetic effect on Zn uptake when Zn had slight but insignificant antagonistic effects on Cu uptake. For the roots, Cu and Zn had significant synergetic effect on each other. Regression equations obtained from the data indicate that Cu and Zn levels normally found in wastewater (0,08 mg L) are 300 times lower than those used for the most concentrated experimental solutions (30 and 25 mg/L, respectively) and may, on a long term basis, be beneficial rather than toxic to wheat plants and do not acidify soil pit, (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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