4.8 Article

Effects of forms and rates of potassium fertilizers on cadmium uptake by two cultivars of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.)

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 973-978

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0160-4120(03)00081-3

关键词

anion; potassium fertilizers; cadmium uptake; spring wheat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A greenhouse pot experiment was conducted to study the influence of potassium fertilizers in different forms and rates on cadmium (Cd) uptake by two cultivars of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.): Brookton and Krichauff. Potassium fertilizers were added to soil at four levels: 0, 55, 110 and 166 mg K kg(-1) soil as KNO3 (N), KCI (C) or K2SO4 (S). CdCl2 was added to all the treatments at a uniform rate equivalent to 15 mg Cd kg(-1) soil. Plant shoot and root dry weights (DW) of both cultivars were reduced significantly by the addition of K-fertilizer in C and S treatments but there were only marginal changes in the N treatments. The Cd concentrations in shoots and whole plants increased significantly (P <.00 1) with increasing K addition, from 37.5 to 81.4 mg kg(-1) and from 42.9 to 86.8 mg kg(-1) for Brookton and Krichauff, respectively. However, no obvious effect was observed in the N treatments, except for the highest K level (M) where there was a sharp increase in Cd concentration compared to the lower additions. Forms of K-fertilizers significantly influenced the Cd concentrations in plant shoots and roots (P<.001), but there was no significant difference between C and S treatments. This experiment showed that anions Cl- and SO42- increase Cd uptake by plants, which can be interpreted as Cl- and SO42- complexing readily with Cd2+ and thereby increasing the bioavailability of Cd2+ in soils. The effect of potassium itself on plant uptake of Cd was also observed. We suggest that when applying potassium fertilizer to Cd-contaminated soils, the forms and rates should be considered. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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