4.7 Article

Element uptake and physiological responses of Lactuca sativa upon co-exposures to tourmaline and dissolved humic acids

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 16, 页码 15998-16008

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-1751-6

关键词

Different fractions of humic acids; Tourmaline; Lactuca saliva L.; Mineral element; Catalase; Abscisic acid

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2014CB441104]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [41673104]
  3. Tianjin Science and Technology Committee [17JCZDJC39600]
  4. Science and Technology Commission of Tianjin Binhai New Area [BHXQKJXM-PT-ZJSHJ-2017002]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  6. 111 program, Ministry of Education, China [T2017002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Element migration and physiological response in Lactuca saliva upon co-exposure to tourmaline (T) and dissolved humic acids (DHAs) were investigated. Different fractions of DHA(1) and DHA(4) and three different doses of T were introduced into Hoagland's solution. The results indicated that T enhanced the contents of elements such as N and C, Si and Al in the roots and shoots. The correlation between TF values of Si and Al (R-2 = 0.7387) was higher than that of Si and Mn (R-2 = 0.4961) without the presence of DHAs. However, both DHA(1) and DHA(4) increased the correlation between Si and Mn, but decreased the one between Si and Al. CAT activities in T treatments were positively correlated to the contents of N and Al in the shoots, whose R-2 was 0.9994 and 0.9897, respectively. In the co-exposure of DHAs and tourmaline, DHA(4) exhibited more impacts on element uptake, CAT activities, as well as ABA contents in comparison with the presence of DHA(1), regardless of the T exposure doses. These results suggested that DHAs have effects on mineral element behaviors and physiological response in Lactuca saliva upon exposure to tourmaline for the first time, which had great use in guiding soil remediation.

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