| Literature DB >> 29145471 |
Abdelghafar M Abu-Elsaoud1, Nivien A Nafady2, Ahmed M Abdel-Azeem1.
Abstract
Mycoremediation is an on-site remediation strategy, which employs fungi to degrade or sequester contaminants from the environment. The present work focused on the bioremediation of soils contaminated with zinc by the use of a native mycorrhizal fungi (AM) called Funneliformis geosporum (Nicol. & Gerd.) Walker & Schüßler. Experiments were performed using Triticum aestivum L. cv. Gemmeza-10 at different concentrations of Zn (50, 100, 200 mg kg-1) and inoculated with or without F. geosporum. The results showed that the dry weight of mycorrhizal wheat increased at Zn stressed plants as compared to the non-Zn-stressed control plants. The concentrations of Zn also had an inhibitory effect on the yield of dry root and shoot of non-mycorrhizal wheat. The photosynthetic pigment fractions were significantly affected by Zn treatments and mycorrhizal inoculation, where in all treatments, the content of the photosynthetic pigment fractions decreased as the Zn concentration increased in the soil. However, the level of minerals of shoots, roots, and grains was greatly influenced by Zn-treatment and by inoculation with F. geosporum. Treatment with Zn in the soil increased Cu and Zn concentrations in the root, shoot and grains, however, other minerals (P, S, K, Ca and Fe) concentration was decreased. Inoculation of wheat with AM fungi significantly reduced the accumulation of Zn and depressed its translocation in shoots and grains of wheat. In conclusion, inoculation with a native F. geosporum-improves yields of wheat under higher levels of Zn and is possible to be applied for the improvement of zinc contaminated soil.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29145471 PMCID: PMC5690681 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188220
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
pH values, electrical conductivity (EC dsm-1), cations and anions contents (mg/100 g), heavy metal contents (Fe and Zn mg kg-1), phosphorus contents (P; mg kg-1), the percentage of organic matter (OM%) and soils texture of 5 sites of cultivated soils.
| Soil | Sampling sites | ANOVA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site 1 | Site 2 | Site 3 | Site 4 | Site 5 | Mean ± SD | F-ratio | ||
| 8.07 | 8.09 | 8.80 | 8.23 | 7.90 | 8.22 ± 0.35 | 2.0 | 0.177 | |
| 2.01 | 1.89 | 1.92 | 1.82 | 2.04 | 1.94 ± 0.09 | 13.5 | <0.001 | |
| 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.47 ± 0.12 | 0.3 | 0.878 | |
| 0.35 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 0.32 | 0.51 | 0.44 ± 0.10 | 0.1 | 0.965 | |
| 3.29 | 3.49 | 2.98 | 3.19 | 2.79 | 3.15 ± 0.27 | 1.3 | 0.332 | |
| 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.0 | 1.000 | |
| 0.59 | 0.42 | 0.87 | 1.17 | 1.32 | 0.87 ± 0.38 | 2.3 | 0.128 | |
| 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.1 | 0.994 | |
| 1.62 | 2.87 | 3.09 | 1.64 | 3.21 | 2.49 ± 0.79 | 10.3 | 0.001 | |
| 8.29 | 8.50 | 6.73 | 8.25 | 6.72 | 7.70 ± 0.89 | 13.5 | <0.001 | |
| 0.59 | 1.34 | 1.27 | 1.31 | 0.62 | 1.03 ± 0.39 | 2.6 | 0.103 | |
| 12.73 | 16.93 | 9.82 | 14.09 | 13.63 | 13.44 ± 2.56 | 109.7 | <0.001 | |
| 0.95 | 1.08 | 0.85 | 1.03 | 0.79 | 0.94 ± 0.12 | 0.3 | 0.886 | |
| Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | -- | -- | ||
Differences between sites were assessed by one-way ANOVA were performed
* Significant for p<0.05
Distribution, root colonization (%) and spore density (The number of spores in 100 g soil) of AMF in 5 sites of cultivated soils.
| Site no. | Plant species | Root Coloniza-tion (%) | AMF | Spore density (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 64 | 14 | ||
| 6 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 10 | ||||
| 17 | ||||
| 2 | 17 | |||
| 3 | ||||
| 19 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| 6 | ||||
| 21 | ||||
| 13 | ||||
| 3 | 90 | 24 | ||
| 11 | ||||
| 14 | ||||
| 19 | ||||
| 28 | ||||
| 7 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 17 | ||||
| 11 | ||||
| 4 | 62 | 6 | ||
| 19 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 23 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| 5 | 80 | 18 | ||
| 13 | ||||
| 4 | ||||
| 15 | ||||
| 9 | ||||
| Total | 425 | |||
Fig 1Fresh and dry weights (g plant) of roots (A, B) and shoots (C, D) of mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal wheat affected by Zn treatments. The data represented are an average of five replicates; error bars represent the standard error for means. ANOVA was carried out to evaluate differences between treatment groups, followed by multiple-rank comparisons of Duncan. Media with similar letters are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range comparisons.
Yield parameters of wheat in response to mycorrhizal inoculation grown under different levels of Zn.
Data were presented as the mean of three replicates followed by the standard deviation (mean ± SD).
| Treatments | Days to flowering | Days to maturity | Plant height (cm) | Spike length | Grain yield | Biological yield | 1000-grain weight | Number of grains per spike | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zn | Inoc. | ||||||||
| 12.21 | 22.89 | 5.92 | 1.87NS | 3.83 | 14.07 | 23.59 | 52.41 | ||
| 39.91 | 37.34 | 92.06 | 32.02 | 104.59 | 111.74 | 48.12 | 121.35 | ||
| 20.53 | 13.27 | 3.41 | 11.91 | 6.86 | 7.41 | 32.34 | 35.21 | ||
One-way ANOVA was performed for each Zn concentration. Means with the same letter and are not significantly different according to Duncan multiple range comparisons. Two-way ANOVA was used to determine the influence of the concentration of AMF and Zn
NS: non—significant (p>0.05)
*—significant (p<0.05)
**—highly significant (p<0.01).
Fig 2(A) Chlorophyll-a, (B) Chlorophyll-b, (C) Carotenoid pigment content as mg g FW of leaves of mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized wheat grown at different levels of treatments with zinc are an average of five replicates, the error bars represent the standard error for the means. ANOVA was performed to assess differences between treatment groups, followed by Duncan's multiple-rank comparisons. Media with similar letters are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range comparisons.
Mineral content in shoots, roots, and grains of wheat grown under different levels of zinc.
The data represented are an average of three replicates ± standard deviation.
| Plant Tissue/ Heavy metals treatment (mg kg-1) | AM | Mineral concentration (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | S | K | Ca | Fe | Cu | Zn | |||
| Root | 0 | NM | 2.87±1.86 ab | 3.14±0.28 c | 11.13±0.17 cd | 18.83±0.24 b | 54.25±3.31 de | 3.36±0.65 a | 6.42±0.67 a |
| M | 5.57±1.54 c | 2.88±0.56 c | 12.72±3.03 d | 22.97±9.26 b | 42.56±6.65 c | 7.47±6.10 ab | 5.83±3.39 b | ||
| 50 | NM | 3.11±1.02 a | 0.17±0.08 a | 7.47±2.83 bc | 1.83±0.15 a | 20.92±0.65 b | 35.55±2.26 d | 31.33±2.04 d | |
| M | 8.62±1.58 ab | 1.37±0.21 b | 10.05±3.16 cd | 17.94±2.33 b | 54.52±3.28 e | 3.39±1.13 a | 4.11±0.41 ab | ||
| 100 | NM | 2.22±2.62 ab | 1.21±1.58 ab | 4.87±1.76 ab | 5.66±2.27 a | 6.66±3.57 a | 34.55±4.55 d | 46.56±2.66 e | |
| M | 7.09±1.82 bc | 0.23±0.08 a | 5.48±0.25 ab | 6.77±0.45 a | 48.59±5.56 d | 15.59±2.70 c | 16.24±2.39 c | ||
| 200 | NM | 1.72±0.57 a | 0.17±0.06 a | 1.89±0.09 a | 8.35±2.24 a | 2.62±0.20 a | 37.00±3.62 e | 47.91±5.96 e | |
| M | 10.56±1.51 c | 0.06±0.04 a | 4.44±2.98 a | 6.39±3.65 a | 47.91±2.74 de | 13.11±3.22 bc | 17.74±1.40 c | ||
| Two-Way ANOVA | |||||||||
| All (df = 7) | 15.34 | 12.71 | 9.64 | 22.12 | 66.99 | 63.46 | 66.42 | ||
| HM (df = 3) | 8.39 | 26.31 | 21.26 | 38.40 | 21.59 | 50.48 | 67.08 | ||
| AM (df = 1) | 65.40 | 0.03 n.s. | 2.00 n.s. | 24.06 | 194.63 | 194.37 | 157.64 | ||
| HM | 5.60 | 3.33 | 0.57 n.s. | 5.19 | 65.37 | 32.67 | 35.35 | ||
| Shoot | 0 | NM | 5.80±3.14 b | 5.80±1.84d | 28.13±3.76 c | 20.88±3.72 b | 24.78±6.88 a | 3.03±0.86a | 11.58±0.3 a |
| M | 6.41±1.43 c | 6.12±0.69d | 20.50±0.36 a | 26.79±10.8 d | 25.90±4.65 a | 4.18±1.11a | 10.09±5.6 ab | ||
| 50 | NM | 4.21±1.69 a | 1.33±0.66a | 8.02± 0.68 a | 2.45±0.52 ab | 10.67±1.01 a | 36.65±5.58c | 36.66±3.58 d | |
| M | 16.96±2.09 c | 5.85±1.30cd | 17.63±6.16 a | 15.13±2.52 d | 20.75±0.14 a | 9.21±3.95a | 14.46±0.42 b | ||
| 100 | NM | 2.25±0.20 a | 0.32±0.15a | 4.42± 1.11 a | 0.71±0.74 a | 5.30±2.54 a | 38.11±5.15d | 48.88±5.24 e | |
| M | 12.41±1.97 c | 4.18±0.82b | 21.81±3.57 b | 4.54±2.41 ab | 18.81±2.40 b | 20.0 ±8.27b | 18.91±6.86 c | ||
| 200 | NM | 2.13±1.92 a | 1.01±0.39 a | 6.98± 1.11 a | 3.5±0.92 ab | 7.38±2.74 a | 33.02±2.87c | 45.98±3.1 d | |
| M | 12.47±4.06 b | 4.55±1.07 b | 16.10±1.39 b | 11.23±6.3 c | 15.59±7.12 ab | 19.18±8.63b | 20.89±5.7 c | ||
| Two-Way ANOVA | |||||||||
| All (df = 7) | 21.75 | 30.41 | 37.60 | 70.67 | 4.02 | 129.24 | 405.82 | ||
| HM (df = 3) | 7.95 | 35.35 | 25.60 | 54.21 | 2.58n.s. | 156.38 | 733.29 | ||
| AM (df = 1) | 113.26 | 61.78 | 0.67n.s. | 228.65 | 4.23 n.s. | 301.332 | 1068.5 | ||
| HM | 5.06 | 15.02 | 61.90 | 34.48 | 5.39 | 44.47 | 157.46 | ||
| Grain | 0 | NM | 6.90±0.79abc | 2.88±0.56 ab | 12.72±3.03 a | 32.9±19.9 bc | 31.23±5.74 b | 10.8±5.99 a | 5.83±3.39 bc |
| M | 11.78±5.08 c | 14.63±8.16 d | 36.59±11.4 b | 13.0±10.2 bc | 16.89±11.74 a | 4.86±1.17 a | 2.22±0.81 a | ||
| 50 | NM | 3.64±4.59 ab | 1.95±1.93 ab | 8.07±10.47 a | 1.91± 2.52 a | 2.61±2.10 a | 47.1±16.3 bc | 34.33±3.26 e | |
| M | 8.22±0.53 bc | 10.11±0.3 cd | 36.34±11.1 b | 22.14±2.67 c | 11.71±8.12 a | 6.47±3.91 a | 4.01±0.20 ab | ||
| 100 | NM | 2.35±0.41 a | 0.72±0.77 a | 1.48± 1.06 a | 1.11±0.56 a | 0.273±0.08 a | 53.05±2.7 c | 40.71±1.00 f | |
| M | 6.95±7.0 abc | 10.09±3.3 bc | 13.87±8.62 a | 6.63±3.10 a | 30.03±8.78 a | 20.73±9.8 bc | 11.71±3.9 cd | ||
| 200 | NM | 5.32±0.5 abc | 4.16±1.07abc | 9.87±2.74 a | 3.36±0.56 a | 2.99±3.55 a | 31.74±3.37 b | 42.55±6.01 e | |
| M | 10.16±2.0 bc | 8.15±1.23 bc | 31.27±5.73 b | 10.76±3.03 a | 5.42±2.78 a | 18.39±6.43 a | 16.19±1.76 d | ||
| Two-Way ANOVA | |||||||||
| All (df = 7) | 2.92 | 6.01 | 8.65 | 4.63 | 23.53 | 16.63 | 48.05 | ||
| HM (df = 3) | 2.64n.s. | 1.09n.s. | 5.67 | 5.62 | 24.89 | 25.39 | 42.07 | ||
| AM (df = 1) | 12.3 | 33.01 | 40.14 | 7.11* | 15.75 | 23.57 | 174.39 | ||
| HM | 0.068n.s. | 1.92n.s. | 1.12 n.s. | 2.81n.s. | 24.76 | 5.54 | 11.92 | ||
Means with similar letters are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range comparisons and bi-directional ANOVA
* Significant at p<0.05
** very significant at p<0.01
*** very high significant at p<0.001; AM: arbuscular mycorrhiza
The phytoextraction efficiency (%), metal uptake (g pot-1), and bioaccumulation factor (BCF) of Zn of wheat subjected to zinc treatments.
Data presented as the mean of three replicates followed by the standard deviation (Mean±SD).
| Treatment | Zinc | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zn | Inoculation. | Phytoextraction | Metal uptake | Bioaccumulation factor (BCF) |
| 209.06 | 17.225 | 248.18 | ||
| 1.51 NS | 15.73 | 17.624 | ||
| 0.236 NS | 3.394 | 3.123 NS | ||
Statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA
NS: not significant (p>0.05)
*—significant (p<0.05)
**—highly significant (p<0.01) according to the MSTATC test.
Fig 3EDX spectra of wheat grains grown on soils contaminated with different levels of Zn, (A) 0 mg kg-1 Zn; (B) 50 mg kg-1 Zn; (C) 100 mg kg-1 Zn and (D) 200 mg kg-1 Zn.
Influence of different levels of Zn on the mycorrhizal colonization of wheat.
F% Frequency of mycorrhizal root segments, M% intensity of mycorrhizal colonization in the root, A% arbuscular frequency in the roots. The data represented are an average of three replicates (mean ± SD) followed by one standard deviation.
| Growth stages | Treatments with Zn (mg kg-1) | R | ANOVA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 50 | 100 | 200 | ||||
| 36.0±2.10a | 48.0±5.03b | 52.0±4.36b | 53.0±1.11b | 0.78 | 15.6 | ||
| 22.3±2.85ab | 29.3±4.34b | 19.0±3.61a | 16.0±3.36a | -0.71 | 10.9 | ||
| 16.7±4.10a | 19.0±5.02a | 13.0±3.61a | 8.0±5.68a | -0.32n.s. | 0.7 n.s. | ||
| 42.0±4.19a | 62.0±4.58b | 67.0±3.90b | 59.0±10.8b | 0.47n.s. | 18.7 | ||
| 34.0±3.01a | 52.0±6.00b | 58.0±7.69b | 49.0±3.88b | 0.47n.s. | 14.8 | ||
| 38.0±4.44a | 36.3±2.82a | 42.3±5.41a | 35.6±3.60a | 0.02n.s. | 0.7 n.s. | ||
| 62.3±2.00a | 82.3±3.25bc | 85.0±5.13c | 75.0±6.25b | 0.33n.s. | 27.5 | ||
| 55.2±1.73a | 58.9±3.61a | 61.3±2.08a | 53.4±2.06a | -0.05n.s. | 0.8n.s. | ||
| 51.4±4.84a | 53.8±6.25a | 59.4±3.61a | 59.3±9.50a | 0.49n.s. | 1.3n.s. | ||
Means in the same row with similar letters are not significantly different according to the Duncan and ANOVA multiple range comparisons. Spearman rank correlation was performed against different treatment concentrations representing the Spearman correlation coefficient and the significance of two tails.
* Significant at p<0.05
** significant at p<0.01
n.s. non-significant at p>0.05.
Fig 4Influence of mycorrhizal colonization on lipid peroxidation as MDA (mmole g-1 FW).
The data represented are an average of five replicates; the error bars represent a standard error for the means. ANOVA was performed to assess differences between treatment groups, followed by Duncan's multiple-rank comparisons. Media with similar letters are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range comparisons.