4.7 Article

Cadmium accumulation and buffering of cadmium-induced stress by arbuscular mycorrhiza in three Pisum sativum L. genotypes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 53, 期 371, 页码 1177-1185

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jexbot/53.371.1177

关键词

cadmium; Glomus intraradices; pea genotypes; phytoremediation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of arbuscular mycorrhiza in reducing Cd stress was investigated in three genotypes of Pisum sativum L. (cv. Frisson, VIR4788, VIR7128), grown in soil/sand pot cultures in the presence and absence of 2-3 mg kg(-1) bioavailable Cd, and inoculated or not with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices. Shoot, root and pod biomass were decreased by Cd in non-mycorrhizal plants. The presence of mycorrhiza attenuated the negative effect of Cd so that shoot biomass and activity of photosystem II, based on chlorophyll a, fluorescence, were not significantly different between mycorrhizal plants growing in the presence or absence of the heavy metal (HM). Total P concentrations were not significantly different between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants treated with Cd. From 20-50-fold more Cd accumulated in roots than in shoots of Cd-treated plants, and overall levels were comparable to other metal-accumulating plants. Genetic variability in Cd accumulation existed between the pea genotypes. Concentration of the HM was lowest in roots of VIR4788 and in pods of VIR4788 and VIR7128. G. intraradices inoculation decreased Cd accumulation in roots and pods of cv. Frisson, whilst high concentrations were maintained in roots and pods of mycorrhizal VIR7128. Shoot concentrations of Cd increased in mycorrhizal cv. Frisson and VIR4788. Sequestration of Cd in root cell walls and/or cytoplasm, measured by EDS/SEM, was comparable between non-mycorrhizal pea genotypes but considerably decreased in mycorrhizal cv. Frisson and VIR7128. Possible mechanisms for mycorrhiza buffering of. Cd-induced stress in the pea genotypes are discussed.

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