4.7 Article

Cadmium accumulation and growth responses of a poplar (Populus deltoids x Populus nigra) in cadmium contaminated purple soil and alluvial soil

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 177, 期 1-3, 页码 268-273

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.028

关键词

Cadmium; Phytoremediation; Poplar; Fast-growing plant; Phytoextractor

资金

  1. Public Welfare Research of Sichuan [2007NGY006]
  2. National Key Technologies RD, China [2006BAC01A011, 2008BADC2B01, 2008BAD98B03]
  3. Sichuan Excellent Youth Science and Technology Foundation [07ZQ026-022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To characterize the phytoextraction efficiency of a hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids x Populus nigra) in cadmium contaminated purple soil and alluvial soil, a pot experiment in field was carried out in Sichuan basin, western China. After one growing period, the poplar accumulated the highest of 541.98 +/- 19.22 and 576.75 +/- 40.55 mu g cadmium per plant with 110.77 +/- 12.68 and 202.54 +/- 19.12 g dry mass in these contaminated purple soil and alluvial soil, respectively. Higher phytoextraction efficiency with higher cadmium concentration in tissues was observed in poplar growing in purple soil than that in alluvial soil at relative lower soil cadmium concentration. The poplar growing in alluvial soil had relative higher tolerance ability with lower reduction rates of morphological and growth characters than that in purple soil, suggesting that the poplar growing in alluvial soil might display the higher phytoextraction ability when cadmium contamination level increased. Even so, the poplars exhibited obvious cadmium transport from root to shoot in both soils regardless of cadmium contamination levels. It implies that this examined poplar can extract more cadmium than some hyperaccumulators. The results indicated that metal phytoextraction using the poplar can be applied to clean up soils moderately contaminated by cadmium in these purple soil and alluvial soil. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据