4.4 Article

Lead stress in seedlings of Avicennia marina, a common mangrove species in South China, with and without cotyledons

期刊

AQUATIC BOTANY
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 112-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2009.10.014

关键词

Heavy metal; Malondialdehyde; Mangroves; Peroxidase activity; Sugar content

资金

  1. Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong SAR, China [160907]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of lead (Pb; 0-1000 mg L-1) stress on the growth and biochemical responses of seedlings of Avicennia marina were examined, with and without cotyledons. After 50 days exposure to Pb, the growth of A. marina was not affected at low concentrations (0-50 mg L-1 Pb). Roots tolerated to high Pb concentrations, with a significant reduction in biomass only at 1000 mg L-1 Pb. In leaves and stems, 500 mg L-1 Pb already caused a significant decline in biomass (0.6-fold). Accumulation of Pb occurred mainly in roots, with some accumulation in cotyledons but very little in leaves. Pb concentrations in both roots and cotyledons were proportional to the Pb levels in the substrate (y = 25.945x - 4281, r(2) = 0.67, P = 0.001 for roots, and y = 0.249x + 45.636, r(2) = 0.879, P < 0.001 for leaves). In treatments with 500 and 1000 mg L-1 Pb, nitrogen concentrations in cotyledons were higher, while the carbon to nitrogen ratios were significantly lower than in the control without Pb. The Pb levels had significant positive effects on sugar content, MDA concentration and POD activity in both roots and leaves, while the removal of cotyledons significantly decreased the POD activity and MDA content in roots A. marina seedlings according to the two-way multivariate analysis of variance test. The sugar content in the cotyledon of Pb treated seedlings was significantly lower than that in the control (without Pb), suggesting that more carbohydrate reserves (e.g., sugar) stored in cotyledons had been mobilized to leaves and even roots under Pb treatment. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.4
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