4.7 Article

Effects of Cd2+ on K+, Ca2+ and N uptake in two halophytes Sesuvium portulacastrum and Mesembryanthemum crystallinum:: Consequences on growth

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 67, 期 1, 页码 72-79

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.064

关键词

Cd accumulation; halophytes; nutritional disturbance; phytoremediation; split-root system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the limits of Cd2+-phytoextraction is the high toxicity of this metal to plants. Growth restriction, chlorosis and necrosis are usually accompanied with a large disturbance of the uptake of essential elements. This work aims to study the effects of cadmium (Cd2+) on potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+) and nitrogen (N) acquisition, and their consequences on growth in two halophytes species: Sesuvium portulacastrum and Mesembryanthemum crystallinum. Seedlings were grown for 30 days in split-root conditions. One half of the root system was immersed in complete nutrient solution (Basal medium (B)) supplemented with 100 mu M Cd2+, and the other half was immersed in a Cd2+-free medium, containing all nutrients (B/Cd plants) or deprived of potassium ((B-K)/Cd) or calcium ((B-Ca)/Cd) or nitrogen ((B-N)/Cd). Using this approach, we demonstrated that K+ and Ca uptake was impaired in roots exposed to Cd. Con cerning N, we noticed no indication of uptake inhibition by Cd2+. However, restriction of K+ uptake by roots was compensated by an increase in the K+-use efficiency, so that growth was not inhibited. Calcium uptake was strongly limited by Cd2+. This inhibition was accompanied by a reduction in growth of ((B-Ca)/Cd) plants. Thus, we conclude that Cd2+ limits growth of both halophytes through restriction imposed on Ca2+ uptake. We suggest that the increase of Ca2+ availability in soils could improve the growth of both species in the presence of Cd2+. This would be essential for improving their utility for extraction of this metal by from salty contaminated soils. (c) 2006 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