4.6 Article

Growth and Lead Accumulation Capacity of Lemna minor and Spirodela polyrhiza (Lemnaceae): Interactions with Nutrient Enrichment

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 214, 期 1-4, 页码 175-184

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-010-0413-1

关键词

Nutrient enrichment; Spirodela polyrhiza; Lemna minor; Lead (Pb); Photosynthetic pigment

资金

  1. Erciyes University [FBT-08-528]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study to understand the biological effects of samples prepared with lead and the effects of lead were conducted on Lemna minor L. and Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid. This study was intended to test the hypothesis that nutrient enrichment (P, NO (3) (-) -N and SO (4) (2-) ) enhances the metal tolerance of floating macrophytes. The plants were exposed to Pb concentrations 0, 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 mg l(-1) for a period of 1, 3, 5, and 7 days. L. minor accumulated 561 mg g(-1) dry weight (dw) Pb, and S. polyrhiza accumulated 330 mg g(-1) dw Pb after 7 days, whereas in the groups enriched with nutrients, L. minor accumulated 128.7 mg g(-1) Pb and S. polyrhiza accumulated 68.7 mg g(-1) dw Pb after 7 days. Relative growth rates and photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoid) were measured in L. minor and S. polyrhiza exposed to different Pb concentrations under laboratory conditions. Relative growth rates were negatively correlated with metal exposure, but nutrient addition was found to suppress this effect. Photosynthetic pigment levels were found negatively correlated with metal exposure, and nutrient addition attenuated chlorophyll decrease in response to metal exposure. Metal and nutrient concentration in water decreased throughout the experiments. The study concluded that nutrient enrichment increases the tolerance of L. minor and S. polyrhiza to metals, that L. minor and S. polyrhiza are suitable candidates for the phytoremediation of low-level lead pollution, and that L. minor was more effective in extracting lead than was S. polyrhiza.

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

4.6
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