4.7 Article

Monitoring the stress resistance of Pennisetum purpureum in Pb (II) contaminated soil bioaugmented with Enterobacter cloacae as defence strategy

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 210, 期 -, 页码 495-502

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.07.050

关键词

Lead; Pennisetum purpureum; Enterobacter cloacae; Antioxidant enzymes; Oxidative damage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lead (Pb) is reported to have negative effects on the biogeochemical behaviour of the plant growth. In recent years, the significance of rhizoremediation of heavy metals has been of great focus aiding in the development rates of plants under stressed conditions. The present study evaluated the physio-biochemical response of Pennisetum purpureum to different concentrations of Pb (II) viz., 0, 50, 100 and 150 mg kg(-1) in the form of lead (II) nitrate. The pre-characterized PGPR strain, Enterobacter cloacae-KU598849 was used to augment the plants. After Pb exposure for 45 d, parameters such as plant growth, lead accumulation, H2O2 content, MDA content, protein, proline content and antioxidant enzymatic activities were quantified. Results illustrated that increasing Pb concentration reduced the early growth, metal accumulation, protein content and affected physio-biochemical changes by causing oxidative damage in plants. Upon augmentation of the bacterial inoculum, the plants significantly resisted the toxic effects of Pb. Increased Pb bioaccumulation pattern was recorded in roots than shoots, were highest uptake was found to be 72 mg kg(-1) dry weight when exposed to 150 mg kg(-1) Pb concentration. Lead supplementation increased the activities of malonylaldehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (PDX), ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and catalase (CAT) in P purpureum. Bacterial bio-augmentation resulted in the reduction of the oxidative stress aided with reduced antioxidant enzyme activities indicating the minimization of the damages under stress. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. 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