4.7 Review

Cadmium minimization in wheat: A critical review

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 43-53

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.04.001

关键词

Food security; Growth and yield; Silicon; Biochar; Agricultural practices; Mineral nutrients

资金

  1. Government College, University Faisalabad of Pakistan
  2. HEC (Higher Education Commission) of Pakistan [IPFP/HRD/HEC/2014/1035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cadmium (Cd) accumulation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and its subsequent transfer to food chain is a major environmental issue worldwide. Understanding wheat response to Cd stress and its management for aiming to reduce Cd uptake and accumulation in wheat may help to improve wheat growth and grain quality. This paper reviewed the toxic effects, tolerance mechanisms, and management of Cd stress in wheat. It was concluded that Cd decreased germination, growth, mineral nutrients, photosynthesis and grain yield of wheat and plant response to Cd toxicity varies with cultivars, growth conditions and duration of stress applied. Cadmium caused oxidative stress and genotoxicity in wheat plants. Stimulation of antioxidant defense system, osmoregulation, ion homeostasis and over production of signalling molecules are important adaptive strategies of wheat under Cd stress. Exogenous application of plant growth regulators, inorganic amendments, proper fertilization, silicon, and organic, manures and biochar, amendments are commonly used for the reduction of Cd uptake in wheat. Selection of low Cd-accumulating wheat cultivars, crop rotation, soil type, and exogenous application of microbes are among the other agronomic practices successfully employed in reducing Cd uptake by wheat. These management practices could enhance wheat tolerance to Cd stress and reduce the transfer of Cd to the food chain. However, their long-term sustainability in reducing Cd uptake by wheat needs further assessment. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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