| Literature DB >> 32060306 |
Ziheng Song1, Yinli Bi2, Jian Zhang1, Yunli Gong1, Huihui Yang1.
Abstract
It is urgent to restore the ecological function in open-pit mining areas on grassland in Eastern China. The open-pit mines have abundant of mining associated clay, which is desirable for using as a soil source for ecological restoration. The mining associated clay in Hulunbuir district, Inner Mongolia was selected and mixed with a sandy soil at a ratio of 1:1 (S_C soil). Also, effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation on soil functions were studied. The aboveground and underground biomass of maize in S_C soil was 1.49 and 2.41 times higher than that of clay soil, respectively. In the topsoil and S_C soil, the growth hormone (IAA) and cytokinin (CTK) levels of maize were higher than that of clay, while abscission acid (ABA) levels were lower. The inoculation with AMF could significantly improve the biomass of maize and enhance the stress resistance of plants. Through structural equation model (SEM) analyses, it was found that the soil type and AMF inoculation had the most direct impact on maize growth and biomass content. These finds extend our knowledge regarding a low-cost method for physical and biological improvement of mining associated clay, and to provide theoretical support for large-scale application in the future.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32060306 PMCID: PMC7021785 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59447-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Geologic profile of open-pit mines in HulunBuir grasslands of Inner Mongolia, northeast China.
Selected initial physico-chemical properties of sandy soil, clay soil, and top soil used in this study.
| soil | pH | EC | Particle size | Water holding capacity(%) | Available N | Available P | bacteria | fungus | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand | Silt | Clay | cfu g−1 | |||||||
| Top soil | 7.52 | 237 | 35.5 | 21.7 | 42.8 | 35.23 | 124.37 | 13.71 | 5.4 × 105 | 1700 |
| Clay soil | 7.8 | 287 | 0 | 1.9 | 98.1 | 46.54 | 86.9 | 17.04 | 200 | 0 |
| Sandy soil | 7.23 | 0.08 | 97.6 | 2.4 | 0 | 23.51 | 14 | 4.95 | 3.2 × 105 | 100 |
Experimental Design.
| Treatment | Soil treatment | AMF | Denoted |
|---|---|---|---|
| M | Top soil | Top soil + M | |
| Clay soil | Clay soil + M | ||
| Sandy soil | Sandy soil + M | ||
| Clay soil + sandy soil (1:1 W/W) | S_C soil + M | ||
| CK | Top soil | sterilized | Top soil |
| Clay soil | Clay soil | ||
| Sandy soil | Sandy soil | ||
| Clay soil + sandy soil (1:1 W/W) | S_C soil |
Effects of different treatments on plant biomass.
| Mycorrhizal infection rate % | Mycelium density m g−1 | above-ground biomass g plant−1 | underground biomass g plant−1 | Mycorrhizal responsiveness % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top soil | 0 | 0 | 11.07 ± 1.1b | 1.58 ± 0.04b | 29.45 |
| Top soil + M | 83 ± 3a | 3.61 ± 0.11a | 14.2 ± 0.22a | 2.17 ± 0.13a | |
| Sandy soil | 0 | 0 | 8.17 ± 0.27 cd | 0.94 ± 0.13 cd | 25.48 |
| Sandy soil + M | 83 ± 3a | 3.88 ± 0.09a | 10.16 ± 0.84bc | 1.27 ± 0.07c | |
| Clay soil | 0 | 0 | 7.08 ± 0.59d | 0.7 ± 0.06d | 11.85 |
| Clay soil + M | 80 ± 2a | 1.54 ± 0.21b | 7.86 ± 0.34bcd | 0.82 ± 0.05c | |
| S_C soil | 0 | 0 | 10.57 ± 0.45b | 1.61 ± 0.07b | 34.83 |
| S_C soil + M | 83 ± 3a | 3.79 ± 0.13a | 14.25 ± 0.8a | 2.17 ± 0.14a |
Figure 2Soil enzyme activities of different soil types and treatments. Values are means ± standard deviations of triplicate measurements. Mean values with the same letter are not significantly different among treatments at the 5% level.
Figure 3Plant Hormone Levels in Different Treatments of different soil types and treatments.
Figure 4A structural equation model showing the direct and indirect effects of soil type, treatment, acid phosphatase, and urease on the plant biomass. Solid and dashed arrows indicate significant and nonsignificant relationships, respectively. The width of the arrows is proportional to the strength of the path. R2 denotes the proportion of variance. Standardized effects (total, direct, and indirect effects) are derived from the structural equation model. The hypothetical model fits our data well: χ2 = 1.37, P = 0.50, df = 2, GFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.00.