4.7 Article

Evaluation of the cadmium phytoextraction potential of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and rhizosphere micro-characteristics under different cadmium levels

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 286, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131714

关键词

Cd phytoremediation; Acidification; Rhizobacteria; Bioaccumulation; Microbial community structure

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD0800304]
  2. Key R&D and Promotion Project of Henan Province [192102310234, 182102110056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that tobacco has a high efficiency in remediating Cd-contaminated soil, and can enrich different types of microbes under different Cd concentrations to increase Cd bioavailability.
In this study, a field-scale and pot experiment were performed to evaluate the remedial efficiency of Cd contaminated soil by tobacco and explore rhizosphere micro-characteristics under different cadmium levels, respectively. The results indicated that tobacco could remove 12.9 % of Cd from soil within a short growing period of 80 d. The pot experiment revealed that tobacco could tolerate soil Cd concentrations up to 5.8 mg kg(-1) and bioaccumulate 68.1 and 40.8 mg kg(-1) Cd in shoots and roots, respectively. The high Cd bioaccumulation in tobacco might be attributed to strong acidification in the rhizosphere soil and the increase in Cd bioavailability. Rhizobacteria did not appear to be involved in Cd mobilization. In contrast, tobacco tended to enrich sulfate-reducing bacteria (such as Desulfarculaceae) under high Cd treatment (5.8 mg kg(-1)) but enrich plant growth-promoting bacteria (such as Bacillus, Dyadobacter, Virgibacillus and Lysobacter) to improve growth under low Cd treatment (0.2 mg kg 1), suggesting that tobacco employed different microbes for responding to Cd stress. Our results demonstrate the advantages of using tobacco for bioremediating Cd contaminated soil and clarify the rhizosphere mechanisms underlying Cd mobilization and tolerance.

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