| Literature DB >> 35214856 |
Madeleine Silvia Günthardt-Goerg1, Pierre Vollenweider1, Rainer Schulin2.
Abstract
The restoration of forest ecosystems on metal-contaminated sites can be achieved whilst producing valuable plant biomass. Here, we investigated the metal accumulation and biomass production of young afforestations on contaminated plots by simulating brownfield site conditions. On 16 3-m2 plots, the 15 cm topsoil was experimentally contaminated with Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 2854/588/103/9.2 mg kg-1 using smelter filter dust, while 16 uncontaminated plots (Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 97/28/37/< 1) were used as controls. Both the calcareous (pH 7.4) and acidic (pH 4.2) subsoils remained uncontaminated. The afforestations consisted of groups of conifers, deciduous trees, and understorey plants. During the four years of cultivation, 2254/86/0.35/10 mg m-2 Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd were extracted from the contaminated soils and transferred to the aboveground parts of the plants (1279/72/0.06/5.5 mg m-2 in the controls). These extractions represented 3/2/3% of the soluble soil Zn/Cu/Cd fractions. The conifers showed 4-8 times lower root-to-shoot translocation of Cu and Zn than the deciduous trees. The contamination did not affect the biomass of the understorey plants and reduced that of the trees by 23% at most. Hence, we conclude that the afforestation of brown field sites with local tree species is an interesting option for their reclamation from an ecological as well as economic perspective.Entities:
Keywords: conifers; deciduous trees; forest ecosystem restoration; metal extraction efficiency; phytoremediation; trace elements; understorey
Year: 2022 PMID: 35214856 PMCID: PMC8879495 DOI: 10.3390/plants11040523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Mean ± SE (N = 8) metal concentrations per organ for each plant group and treatment at the end of the experimental period. Groups: u = understorey plants (Allium, Tanacetum, Carex, seedlings of Quercus, Fagus and Picea). d = deciduous trees (Betula, Populus, Salix). s = coniferous trees, Picea abies; R = roots, W = wood, L = leaves (foliage). nd = not determined due to metal concentrations below detection limit (dl = 0.1 mg kg−1). Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between HM and CO treatment according to Tukey test; a plus (+) indicates a significant difference between the two subsoil types each in the HM or CO treatment; the letters u, d, s denote significant differences of the respective plant group to the plant group indicated by the letter within a treatment; R, W, L denote significant differences of the respective plant organ within a group and treatment.
| Zn | Cu | Pb | Cd | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HM | CO | HM | CO | HM | CO | HM | CO | |||||||||
| Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | Acid | Calc | |
| u R | 1544 ± 61.2 | 1432 ± 53.5 | 109.7 ± 14.4 | 103.0 ± 13.9 | 579.4 ± 56.5 | 505.3 ± 23.8 | 31.9 ± 10.5 | 30.7 ± 7.7 | 10.9 ± 0.7 | 10.4 ± 0.7 | 2.0 ± 0.09 | 2.1 ± 0.16 | 4.8 ± 0.19 | 4.6 ± 0.26 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.4 ± 0.03 |
| u W | 147.2 ± 9.5 | 132.5 ± 13.2 | 65.6 ± 6.6 | 76.5 ± 12.8 | 16.8 ± 0.6 | 22.6 ± 3.2 | 14.6 ± 0.4 | 13.4 ± 0.6 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| u L | 253.2 ± 13.5 | 187.1 ± 9.4 | 76.2 ± 3.2 | 74.3 ± 1.9 | 16.5 ± 1.0 | 17.5 ± 1.4 | 14.5 ± 1.8 | 12.8 ± 0.7 | 3.7 ± 0.7 | 3.0 ± 0.6 | nd | nd | 1.2 ± 0.06 | 0.7 ± 0.06 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.3 ± 0.02 |
| d R | 876.2 ± 59.4 | 598.4 ± 40.2 | 158.8 ± 5.0 | 141.6 ± 3.6 | 181.9 ± 11.9 | 131.7 ± 11.9 | 16.7 ± 0.4 | 16.5 ± 0.7 | 7.7 ± 0.4 | 6.0 ± 0.3 | 2.5 ± 0.15 | 2.3 ± 0.16 | 3.3 ± 0.16 | 1.9 ± 0.01 | 1.0 ± 0.04 | 0.7 ± 0.02 |
| d W | 257.4 ± 5.0 | 171.6 ± 5.9 | 127.5 ± 5.1 | 103.4 ± 4.1 | 7.1 ± 0.2 | 6.1 ± 0.1 | 6.4 ± 0.2 | 6.0 ± 0.2 | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1.5 ± 0.04 | 0.8 ± 0.06 | 0.8 ± 0.06 | 0.5 ± 0.02 |
| d L | 1270 ± 44.8 | 905.7 ± 29.5 | 560 ± 13.6 | 424.5 ± 11.1 | 11.2 ± 02 | 10.6 ± 0.4 | 10.8 ± 0.2 | 10.2 ± 0.2 | nd | nd | nd | nd | 3.8 ± 0.17 | 2.0 ± 0.10 | 2.1 ± 0.10 | 1.2 ± 0.07 |
| s R | 1731 ± 88.4 | 1874 ± 96.7 | 164.1 ± 4.3 | 157.7 ± 5.7 | 365.5 ± 24.0 | 322.7 ± 32.4 | 19.7 ± 0.7 | 18.4 ± 0.8 | 14.6 ± 1.0 | 12.4 ± 1.0 | 2.9 ± 0.33 | 2.3 ± 0.26 | 5.0 ± 0.25 | 4.6 ± 0.27 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.5 ± 0.06 |
| s W | 178.5 ± 9.2 | 180.7 ± 9.5 | 127.7 ± 4.7 | 122.3 ± 10.4 | 9.6 ± 0.5 | 11.1 ± 0.8 | 9.0 ± 0.4 | 9.3 ± 0.5 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| s L | 185.8 ± 8.3 | 191.3 ± 5.9 | 101.6 ± 3.9 | 108.9 ± 2.9 | 3.60 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 3.5 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.1 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
Figure 1Mean (N = 8) rates of soil-to-plant metal transfer (mg metal per m2 ground area) over 4 years after establishing afforestations by plant groups (understorey plants, deciduous trees, conifers) and plant parts (roots, aboveground wood, foliage). Pb was below detection limit in tree wood (brown squares) and above detection limit only in understorey shoots from the HM treatment. Cd was below detection limit in conifer wood and foliage. CO = uncontaminated control plots, HM = plots with heavy metal contaminated topsoil, calc = calcareous subsoil, acid = acidic subsoil; total = all parts of all plants + non-associated roots collected by sieving the soil after the final harvest. ANOVA see Table 2.
ANOVA results for the data presented in Figure 1 and Figure 3: Error probabilities of significant effects by plant parts and plant groups on amounts of plant metal accumulation for the HM treatment (heavy metal contamination of topsoil vs. no contamination), the subsoil type (calcareous vs. acidic) and their interaction (HM:soil). u = understorey plants, d = deciduous trees, s = coniferous spruce trees; R = roots, W = wood, L = leaves (foliage), total = R + W + L + non-associated roots; ns = not significant (p > 0.05), nd = not determined due to metal concentrations below detection limit.
| Zn | Cu | Pb | Cd | Biomass | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group/ | HM | Subsoil | HM | Subsoil | HM | Subsoil | HM | Subsoil | HM | Subsoil |
| u | <0.0001 | 0.0083 | <0.0001 | 0.0011 | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | 0.0002 | ns | <0.0001 |
| d R | <0.0001 | 0.0399 HM: soil 0.0189 | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | HM: soil 0.0309 | 0.0011 | <0.0001 |
| d W | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | nd | <0.0001 | HM: soil 0.0024 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| d L | <0.0001 | 0.0030 HM: soil 0.0068 | 0.0046 | 0.0003 | nd | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||
| s R | <0.0001 | 0.0042 | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | 0.002 | ns | <0.0001 HM: soil 0.0289 |
| s W | <0.0001 | 0.0077 | ns | 0.0088 | nd | nd | ns | <0.0001 HM: soil 0.0053 | ||
| s L | <0.0001 | 0.0035 | ns | <0.0001 HM: soil 0.0357 | nd | nd | 0.0072 | <0.0001 HM: soil 0.0004 | ||
|
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 HM: soil 0.028 | <0.0001 | 0.0018 | <0.0001 | ns | <0.0001 | 0.0022 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Figure 2Soil metal contamination (HM = contaminated topsoil vs. CO = no contamination) and subsoil (calc = calcareous vs. acid = acidic) effects on (A) the ratios (g g−1) between metal amounts allocated to shoots and roots (SRMAR = shoot-to-root metal allocation ratio) and (B–E) on the metal amounts transferred into the roots (B,D) and shoots (C,E) of the experimental plants relative (in % of mass) to the amounts of contaminating metals in the soil (SRMTR = relative soil-to-root metal transfer rate; SSMTR = relative soil-to-shoot metal transfer rate). The rates of metal transfer into roots and shoots are given relative to the total amount of the respective soil metal (B,C), as well as relative to the magnitude of its soluble pool in the soil (D,E). Bars represent mean values ± SE (N = 8) per metal treatment and subsoil by plant groups (u = understorey plants, d = deciduous trees, s = conifers, i.e., spruce). No values could be determined for the SRMAR and SRMTR of the understorey plants, as their roots could not be clearly separated, and where metal concentrations were below detection limit. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between HM and CO treatment according to Tukey test; a plus (+) indicates a significant difference between the two subsoil types; the letters u, d, s above a bar denote significant differences of the respective plant group to the plant group indicated by the letter within a treatment.
Figure 3Mean biomass (N = 8) of the afforestations at the final harvest 4 years after plantation, by plant parts and plant groups. ANOVA see Table 2, notation as in Figure 1.
Comparison of dendroremediation results calculated from a range of references. L = Leaves, W = wood (shoot), R = roots, (-) = not analysed.
| Topsoil Contamination (Total Extractable, mg kg−1 at Harvest) | Site | Species | Organs | Period (Years) | Extraction (mg m−2 year−1) | Yield | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zn/Cu/-/Cd = 1158/264/-/2.8 | Caslano and Dornach Switzerland |
| LW | 2 and 5 | Zn/-/-/Cd = 330/-/-/0.1 and 155/-/-/0.1 | 5 or 6.6 | [ |
| Zn/Cu/-/Cd = 650/530/-/2 | Dornach Switzerland |
| LWR | 3 and 1 | Zn/Cu/-/Cd = | 4.3 and 14 | [ |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 400/180/170/2.5 | Copenhagen recycling center Denmark |
| LW | 1 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 35/0.8/0.04/10 | 0.9 | [ |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 377/-/-/6.5 | Campine region Belgium | LW | 4 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = | 3.8 | [ | |
| Zn/Cu/-/Cd = 174/81/-/1.3 | Hradec Kralove Czech Republic | LWR | 2 | Zn/Cu/-/Cd = | 0.4 | [ | |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 295/24/283/2.8 | Litavka River sediments Czech Republic |
| LWR | 3 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 100/-/2.3/2.7 | 12 | [ |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 1563/112/-/16.7 | Harbour Rotterdam, The Netherlands | W | 33 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 15/0.2/-/0.5 | 2 | [ | |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/- = 56/17/27/- | Gao country, Sichuan, China |
| LWR | stand 27 | Zn/Cu/Pb/- = 3095/861/1453/- | [ | |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 243/51/27/- | Erzurum Turkey |
| LWR | stand 35 | Zn/Cu/Pb/- = 18′085/8′000/2′886/- | [ | |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 972/173/1687/15 | Chenzhou, China |
| LWR | 5 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 1410/38/148/61 | 10 | [ |
| Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 2854/588/103/9.2 | Birmensdorf, Switzerland | Understorey + deciduous + conifer trees | LWR | 4 | Zn/Cu/Pb/Cd = 749/70/2/3 | 14 |