4.5 Article

Light Intensity Alters the Extent of Arsenic Toxicity in Helianthus annuus L. Seedlings

Journal

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 158, Issue 3, Pages 410-421

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-014-9950-6

Keywords

Arsenic; Antioxidant system; Helianthus annuus L.; Seedlings; Optimum light intensity; Sub-optimum light intensity; Low light intensity

Funding

  1. University Grants Commission, New Delhi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study is aimed at assessing the extent of arsenic (As) toxicity under three different light intensities-optimum (400 mu mole photon m(-2) s(-1)), sub-optimum (225 mu mole photon m(-2) s(-1)), and low (75 mu mole photon m(-2) s(-1))-exposed to Helianthus annuus L. var. DRSF-113 seedlings by examining various physiological and biochemical parameters. Irrespective of the light intensities under which H. annuus L. seedlings were grown, there was an As dose (low, i.e., 6 mg kg(-1) soil, As-1; and high, i.e., 12 mg kg(-1) soil, As-2)-dependent decrease in all the growth parameters, viz., fresh mass, shoot length, and root length. Optimum light-grown seedlings exhibited better growth performance than the sub-optimum and low light-grown seedlings; however, low light-grown plants had maximum root and shoot lengths. Accumulation of As in the plant tissues depended upon its concentration used, proximity of the plant tissue, and intensity of the light. Greater intensity of light allowed greater assimilation of photosynthates accompanied by more uptake of nutrients along with As from the medium. The levels of chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids declined with increasing concentrations of As. Seedlings acquired maximum Chl a and b under optimum light which were more compatible to face As-1 and As-2 doses of As, also evident from the overall status of enzymatic (SOD, POD, CAT, and GST) and non-enzymatic antioxidant (Pro).

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