4.7 Article

Effects of arsenate and phosphate on their accumulation by an arsenic-hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata L.

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 249, Issue 2, Pages 373-382

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022837217092

Keywords

accumulation; arsenate; hyperaccumulator; interaction; phosphate; Pteris vittata L.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Arsenate and phosphate interactions are important for better understanding their uptake and accumulation by plant due to their similarities in chemical behaviors. The present study examined the effects of arsenate and phosphate on plant biomass and uptake of arsenate and phosphate by Chinese brake (Pteris vittata L.), a newly-discovered arsenic hyperaccumulator. The plants were grown for 20 weeks in a soil, which received the combinations of 670, 2670, or 5340 mumol kg(-1) arsenate and 800, 1600, or 3200 mumol kg(-1) phosphate, respectively. Interactions between arsenate and phosphate influenced their availability in the soil, and thus plant growth and uptake of arsenate and phosphate. At low and medium arsenate levels (670 and 2670 mumol kg(-1)), phosphate had slight effects on arsenate uptake by and growth of Chinese brake. However, phosphate substantially increased plant biomass and arsenate accumulation by alleviating arsenate phytotoxicity at high arsenate levels (5340 mumol kg(-1)). Moderate doses of arsenate increased plant phosphate uptake, but decreased phosphate concentrations at high doses because of its phytotoxicity. Based on our results, the minimum P/As molar ratios should be at least 1.2 in soil solution or 1.0 in fern fronds for the growth of Chinese brake. Our findings suggest that phosphate application may be an important strategy for efficient use of Chinese brake to phytoremediate arsenic contaminated soils. Further study is needed on the mechanisms of interactive effects of arsenate and phosphate on Chinese brake in hydroponic systems.

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