4.7 Article

Exogenous foliar application of fulvic acid alleviate cadmium toxicity in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 10-19

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.08.064

关键词

Fulvic acid; Cadmium stress; Lettuce; Antioxidant enzymes; Mineral nutrition

资金

  1. National key research and development program of China [2016YFD0800703, SQ2018YFD080066]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It was reported that fulvic acid (FA) has a positive effect on enhancing plant tolerance to various environmental stresses, including salinity stress and drought stress and so on. However, there is little study regarding the effects of FA on plants in response to heavy metal stress. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the potential effects of fulvic acid (FA) on cadmium (Cd) toxicity alleviation in lettuce seedlings. Our results showed that application of 0.5 g/L FA significantly mitigate Cd-induced toxic symptoms in lettuce seedlings. Cd stress triggered plant growth inhibition, photosynthetic pigment reduction, destruction of the photosynthesis apparatus, reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation, and nutrient elemental imbalance. We observed that FA promoted the growth in lettuce under Cd stress, mainly reflected in those alterations that the increase of biomass, chlorophyll content and photosynthesis capacity and reduction of the Cd content and lipid peroxidation in plant tissue. Foliar spraying of FA significantly alleviated these detrimental symptoms and facilitated nutrient element translocation from root to shoot, particularly the absorption of elements involved in photosynthesis, including iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and manganese (Mn). In summary, foliar application of FA conferred Cd toxicity tolerance to lettuce by increasing ROS-scavenging capacity, inhibiting Cd uptake and the transport of elemental nutrients to shoots, which in turn protected the photosynthetic apparatus and promoted plant growth.

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