4.1 Article

Malondialdehyde content in the leaves of small-leaved linden tilia cordata and Norway maple acer platanoides under the influence of volatile organic compounds

期刊

PLANT BIOSYSTEMS
卷 156, 期 3, 页码 619-627

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/11263504.2021.1897701

关键词

Small-leaved linden; Norway maple; malondialdehyde; o-xylene; benzopyrene; butyl acetate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies have shown that volatile organic compounds have different effects on the MDA content in the leaves of small-leaved linden and Norway maple, and the growth environment under natural conditions also affects the changes in MDA content.
Malondialdehyde (MDA) content is a widely used parameter as a measure of lipid peroxidation in plant tissue that increases under oxidative stress. In model experiments, the effect of various doses of volatile organic compounds (o-xylene, benzopyrene, butyl acetate) on the MDA content in the leaves of small-leaved linden Tilia cordata Mill. and Norway maple Acer platanoides L. was studied. It was found that one day after the treatment butyl acetate has the strongest stimulating effect on the MDA content in the leaves of small-leaved linden and o-xylene and benzopyrene - in the leaves of Norway maple. Three days after processing, o-xylene and benzopyrene are highly active substances for small-leaved linden, and benzopyrene for Norway maple. The complex effect on the leaves of small-leaved linden and Norway maple seedlings with a mixture of butyl acetate and o-xylene leads to an increase in the toxicity of butyl acetate in the presence of o-xylene compared with its single effect. Under natural conditions, the MDA content in the leaves of small-leaved linden and Norway maple near industrial factories was 1.5-2.0 times higher than in the plants growing in protected areas. Ontogenetic and species differences in the MDA content in the leaves of small-leaved linden and Norway maple caused by their growth in different industrial zones were established.

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

4.1
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