4.7 Article

Effects of Cd and Zn on physiological and anatomical properties of hydroponically grown Brassica napus plants

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 25, 页码 20705-20716

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-9697-7

关键词

Brassica napus; Cadmium uptake; Mineral uptake; Phytoextraction; Root anatomy; Zinc uptake

资金

  1. Particular Research Program, University of Hradec Kralove [SV 2103/2015]
  2. Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports [LO1417]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clarifying the connection between metal exposure and anatomical changes represents an important challenge for a better understanding of plant phytoextraction potential. A hydroponic screening experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of combined interactions of Cd and Zn on mineral uptake (Mg, K, Ca, Na) and on the physiological and anatomical characteristics of Brassica napus L cv. Cadeli, Viking, and Navajo. Plants were exposed to 5 mu M Cd (CdCl2), 10 mu M Zn (ZnSO4), or both Cd + Zn, for 14 days. Cadmium exposure led to a significant reduction in root growth, shoot biomass, and chlorophyll content. After Cd-only and Cd + Zn treatment, primary root tips became thicker and pericycle cells were enlarged compared to the control and Zn-only treatment. No differences between metals were observed under UV excitation, where all treatments showed more intensive autofluorescence connected with lignin/suberin accumulation compared to control conditions. The highest concentrations of Cd and Zn were found in the roots of all tested plants, and translocation factors did not exceed the threshold of 1.0. The root mineral composition was not affected by any treatment. In the shoots, the Mg concentration slightly increased after Cd-only and Cd + Zn treatments, whereas Zn-only treatment caused a sharp decrease in Ca content. Slight increases in K were seen after the addition of Zn. Significantly higher concentrations of Na were induced by Cd- or Zn-only treatment.

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