4.5 Article

Effects of Cd and Pb in sugar beet plants grown in nutrient solution: induced Fe deficiency and growth inhibition

期刊

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1453-1464

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP02090

关键词

cadmium toxicity; heavy metal toxicity; iron deficiency; lead toxicity; sugar beet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effects of Cd and Pb toxicity were investigated in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) grown in hydroponics under growth-chamber-controlled conditions. Chemical speciation calculations were used to estimate the chemical species in equilibrium. Cd, used as chloride salt or chelated to EDTA, decreased fresh and dry mass of both root and shoot, and increased root/shoot ratios. Plants developed few brownish roots with short laterals. Cd decreased N, P, Mg, K, Mn, Cu and Zn uptake, and facilitated Ca uptake. Leaves of plants treated with 10 or 50 muM Cd-EDTA and 10 muM CdCl2 developed symptoms of Fe deficiency. These symptoms included decreased leaf chlorophyll (Chl) and carotenoid concentrations, increased carotenoid/Chl and Chl a/b ratios, de-epoxidation of violaxanthin cycle pigments, and decreased photosynthetic rates and PSII efficiency. Plants treated with 50 muM CdCl2, however, had decreased growth but did not show marked leaf Fe-deficiency symptoms. All Cd treatments increased Fe(III)-chelate reductase activity in root tips, although Fe concentrations in shoots were similar to those found in control plants. Pb chelated with EDTA induced visual symptoms only at concentrations of 2 mM. Leaves of Pb-treated plants remained green and their edges were rolled inwards. Pb increased root fresh and dry mass with no changes in shoot mass, therefore increasing the root/shoot ratio. Changes in plant nutrient concentrations with Pb were only minor, although leaf Cu levels approached critical deficiency levels. No symptoms of Fe deficiency were apparent in leaves. Root tips of Pb-treated plants, however, had increased Fe( III)-chelate reductase activities.

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

4.5
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