| Literature DB >> 33806210 |
Fernando Henrique Reboredo1,2, João Pelica2, Fernando C Lidon1,2, Maria F Pessoa1,2, Maria Manuela Silva2,3, Mauro Guerra4, Roberta Leitão4, José C Ramalho2,5.
Abstract
The contamination of abandoned mining areas is a problem worldwide that needs urgent attention. Phytoremediation emerges as a successful method to extract different contaminants from the soil. In this context, Eucalyptus globulus plants growing in soils artificial contaminated with arsenic (As) were used to access its phytoremediation capabilities. The effects of As on photosynthetic performance were monitored through different physiological parameters, whereas the uptake and translocation of As and the putative effects on calcium, iron, potassium, and zinc levels on plants were evaluated by X-ray fluorescence analysis. Root system is the major accumulator organ, while the translocation to the above-ground organs is poor. In the end of the experiment, the root biomass of plants treated with 200 μg As mL-1 is 27% and 49.7% lower than equivalent biomass from plants treated with 100 μg As mL-1 and control plants, respectively. Each plant can accumulate 8.19 and 8.91 mg As after a 6-month period, when submitted to 100 As and 200 As, respectively. It seems to exist an antagonistic effect of As on Zn root uptake by E. globulus. In general, the tested concentrations do not influence negatively plant metabolism, indicating that this species is suitable for plantation in contaminated areas.Entities:
Keywords: Eucalyptus globulus; arsenic toxicity; biomass production; photosynthesis tolerance; phytoremediation
Year: 2021 PMID: 33806210 PMCID: PMC8066964 DOI: 10.3390/plants10040627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Variation of the content of As in different organs (μg g−1), total As (mg, obtained based on the As concentrations from the biomass), biomass (g dry weight), and plant height (cm) in E. globulus plants submitted to 100 or 200 µg As mL−1 treatments.
|
| Control | 100 μg As mL−1 | 200 μg As mL−1 | |
| As concentration Leaf |
| 3.8 ± 0.3 a | 3.6 ± 0.6 a | |
| Stem |
|
|
| |
| Root |
| 49.2 ± 5.9 a,s | 74.3 ± 16.9 b,r | |
| Total As (mg plant−1) | – | 2.38 | 2.52 | |
| Total biomass | 92.7 | 148 | 86.2 | |
| Leaf | 37.8 ± 17.3 ab,r | 50.7 ± 19.0 a,r | 23.0 ± 6.1 b,s | |
| Stem | 39.5 ± 15.6 a,r | 50.3 ± 17.0 a,r | 33.3 ± 12.7 a,r | |
| Root | 15.4 ± 1.9 a,t | 47.4 ± 7.8 a,s | 30.9 ± 16.3 ab,s | |
| Plant height | 113 ± 4 a,r | 121 ± 3 a,r | 114 ± 10 a,r | |
|
| As concentration Leaf |
| 5.7 ± 0.5 b | 10.8 ± 0.4 a |
| Stem |
|
|
| |
| Root |
| 52.9 ± 11.9 a,s | 102 ± 27.1 a,r | |
| Total As (mg plant−1) | – | 6.48 | 9.84 | |
| Total biomass | 167 | 202 | 194 | |
| Leaf | 32.0 ± 10.0 b,r | 42.8 ± 21.3 ab,r | 52.4± 6.0 a,r | |
| Stem | 41.4 ± 18.2 a,r | 41.1 ± 22.0 a,r | 51.0 ± 19.7 a,r | |
| Root | 93.6 ± 23.8 a,s | 118 ± 76.2 a,r | 91.0 ± 31.0 a,r | |
| Plant height | 133 ± 4 a,r | 120 ± 8 a,r | 134 ± 3 a,r | |
|
| As concentration Leaf |
| 6.7 ± 1.6 a | 4.4 ± 0.5 a |
| Stem |
|
|
| |
| Root |
| 54.3 ± 28.7 a,s | 82.3 ± 22.1 ab,r | |
| Total As (mg plant−1) | – | 8.19 | 8.91 | |
| Total biomass | 317 | 235 | 196 | |
| Leaf | 40.2 ± 8.4 a,r | 39.6 ± 15.0 a,r | 42.9 ± 18.8 a,rs | |
| Stem | 66.1 ± 13.8 a,r | 49.8 ± 23.6 a,r | 46.8 ± 24.0 a,r | |
| Root | 211 ± 36 a,r | 146 ± 59 ab,r | 106 ± 47.6 b,r | |
| Plant height | 136 ± 8 a,r | 133 ± 7 a,r | 138 ± 5 a,r |
For each parameter, different letters after the mean values ± standard deviation (n = 3) express significant differences over time (a,b) or between As treatments in each date (r,s); BDL = below the detection limit.
Figure 1Variation in specific leaf area (SLA) leaf weight ratio (LWR) and leaf area ratio (LAR), in E. globulus plants, throughout the experimental (March; T2—May; T3—July). The mean values ± standard error (n = 4) followed by different letters express significant differences over time (a, b) or between As treatments (r, s), for the control (blue), 100 As (orange), and 200 As (grey) treatments.
Figure 2Variation in net photosynthesis rate (Pn), stomatal conductance to water vapor (gs), and transpiration rate (Tr) in E. globulus plants, throughout the experimental period (T1—March; T2—May; T3—July). The mean values ± standard error (n = 5) followed by different letters express significant differences over time (a, b) or between As treatments (r, s); control (blue), 100 As (orange), and 200 As (grey).
Variation of leaf chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters in E. globulus plants submitted to 100 or 200 µg As mL−1 treatments, along the experiment.
| Treatment | March (T1) | May (T2) | July (T3) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.13 | ± | 0.01 b,r | 0.21 | ± | 0.01 a,r | 0.23 | ± | 0.03 a,r |
|
| 0.13 | ± | 0.01 b,r | 0.19 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.23 | ± | 0.02 a,r |
|
| 0.14 | ± | 0.00 b,r | 0.12 | ± | 0.01 b,s | 0.23 | ± | 0.04 a,r |
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| 0.77 | ± | 0.01 a,r | 0.77 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.76 | ± | 0.03 a,r |
|
| 0.78 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.77 | ± | 0.02 a,r | 0.76 | ± | 0.02 a,r |
|
| 0.74 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.77 | ± | 0.02 a,r | 0.76 | ± | 0.04 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.13 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.17 | ± | 0.02 a,rs | 0.17 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| 0.10 | ± | 0.04 b,r | 0.24 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.14 | ± | 0.03 ab,r |
|
| 0.17 | ± | 0.06 a,r | 0.15 | ± | 0.02 a,s | 0.12 | ± | 0.01 a,s |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.55 | ± | 0.01 a,r | 0.71 | ± | 0.02 a,r | 0.66 | ± | 0.01 a,rs |
|
| 0.52 | ± | 0.12 a,r | 0.59 | ± | 0.05 a,s | 0.65 | ± | 0.02 a,s |
|
| 0.50 | ± | 0.02 b,r | 0.64 | ± | 0.04 b,s | 0.71 | ± | 0.03 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.32 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.12 | ± | 0.01 b,s | 0.17 | ± | 0.02 b,r |
|
| 0.38 | ± | 0.11 a,r | 0.17 | ± | 0.03 b,rs | 0.21 | ± | 0.01 b,r |
|
| 0.34 | ± | 0.08 a,r | 0.22 | ± | 0.03 b,r | 0.18 | ± | 0.03 b,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.85 | ± | 0.02 b,r | 0.94 | ± | 0.01 a,r | 0.92 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| 0.82 | ± | 0.09 a,r | 0.88 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.91 | ± | 0.02 a,r |
|
| 0.83 | ± | 0.03 b,r | 0.89 | ± | 0.03 ab,r | 0.92 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.33 | ± | 0.07 a,r | 0.44 | ± | 0.06 a,r | 0.51 | ± | 0.05 a,r |
|
| 0.23 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.56 | ± | 0.18 a,r | 0.44 | ± | 0.07 a,r |
|
| 0.44 | ± | 0.07 a,r | 0.36 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.33 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.32 | ± | 0.03 a,r | 0.33 | ± | 0.09 a,r | 0.28 | ± | 0.04 a,r |
|
| 0.32 | ± | 0.07 a,r | 0.39 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.28 | ± | 0.06 a,r |
|
| 0.32 | ± | 0.33 a,r | 0.33 | ± | 0.05 a,r | 0.30 | ± | 0.02 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 0.87 | ± | 0.04 a,r | 0.83 | ± | 0.02 a,rs | 0.84 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| 0.90 | ± | 0.04 ab,r | 0.76 | ± | 0.03 b,s | 0.86 | ± | 0.03 a,r |
|
| 0.83 | ± | 0.06 a,r | 0.85 | ± | 0.02 a,r | 0.88 | ± | 0.01 a,r |
|
| |||||||||
|
| 7.12 | ± | 3.29 a,r | 5.54 | ± | 5.50 a,r | 7.28 | ± | 3.09 a,r |
|
| 5.16 | ± | 3.44 a,r | 6.69 | ± | 2.47 a,r | 7.33 | ± | 2.54 a,r |
|
| 10.3 | ± | 5.9 a,r | 7.18 | ± | 2.30 a,r | 7.12 | ± | 5.40 a,r |
For each parameter, different letters after the mean values ± standard error (n = 8) express significant differences over time (a,b) or between As treatments in each date (r,s).
Figure 3Average values of K (A) and Ca (B) in the roots, stems, and leaves of E. globulus As-treated plants, throughout the experimental assay. Different letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 significance level. T1 = March; T2 = May; T3 = July; control (blue), 100 µg As mL−1 (orange), and 200 µg As mL−1 (grey).
Figure 4Average values of Zn (A) and Fe (B) in the roots, stems and leaves of E. globulus As-treated plants, throughout the experimental assay. Mean values are expressed as μg g−1 ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 significance level. T1 = March; T2 = May; T3 = July; control (blue), 100 As (orange), and 200 As (grey).