4.8 Article

Yield and arsenate uptake of arbuscular mycorrhizal tomato colonized by Glomus mosseae BEG167 in As spiked soil under glasshouse conditions

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 867-873

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2005.05.041

关键词

arsenic; arbuscular mycorrhiza; phytoextraction; phytoremediation; phytostabilization; soil contamination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A glasshouse pot experiment was conducted to study the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) colonization by Glomus mosseae BEG167 on the yield and arsenate uptake of tomato plants in soil experimentally contaminated with five As levels (0, 25, 50, 75 and 150 mg kg(-1)). Mycorrhizal colonization (50-70% of root length) was little affected by As application and declined only in soil amended with 150 mg As kg(-1). Mycorrhizal colonization increased plant biomass at As application rates of 25, 50 and 75 mg kg(-1). Shoot As concentration increased with increasing As addition up to 50 mg kg(-1) but decreased with mycorrhizal colonization at As addition rates of 75 and 150 mg kg(-1). Shoot As uptake increased with mycorrhizal colonization at most As addition levels studied, but tended to decrease with addition of 150 mg As kg(-1). Total P uptake by mycorrhizal plants was elevated at As rates of 25, 50 and 75 mg kg(-1), and more P was allocated to the roots of mycorrhizal plants. Mycorrhizal plants had higher shoot and root P/As ratios at higher As application rates than did non-mycorrhizal controls. The soil of inoculated treatments had higher available As than uninoculated controls, and higher pH values at As addition levels of 25, 50 and 75 mg kg(-1). Mycorrhizal colonization may have increased plant resistance to potential As toxicity at the highest level of As contamination studied. Mycorrhizal tomato plants may have potential for phytoextraction of As from moderately contaminated soils or phytostabilization of more highly polluted sites. (C) 2005 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

4.8
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