| Literature DB >> 35564693 |
Wiktor Halecki1, Nuria Aide López-Hernández2, Aleksandra Koźmińska3, Krystyna Ciarkowska4, Sławomir Klatka1.
Abstract
This study examined the use of an artificial soil substrate in a mine waste reclamation area and its effect on plant metabolic functions. Research was conducted by determining the relationship between the plants' biochemical features and the properties of plant growth medium derived from post-flotation coal waste, sewage sludge, crushed stone and fly ash on the surface of the mine waste disposal area. Trees and shrubs were established on the material and allowed to grow for eight years. The study determined that the applied plants and the naturally occurring Taraxacum officinale were suitable for physio-biochemical assessment, identification of derelict areas and reclamation purposes. An evaluation of a soil substrate applied to post-mining areas indicated that it was beneficial for plant growth since it activated the metabolic functions of herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees. The study showed that soil substrate can be targeted to improve plant stress tolerance to potentially toxic elements (PTEs). These data suggest the potential for growth and slower susceptible response to Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn. It is possible that the constructed soil-substitute substrate (biosolid material) would be an effective reclamation treatment in areas where natural soil materials are polluted by PTEs. This observation may reflect a more efficient use of soil substrate released from the cycling of organic biogene pools, in accordance with the circular economy approach. In further studies related to land reclamation using sewage sludge amendments, it would be necessary to extend the research to other stress factors, such as salinity or water deficiency.Entities:
Keywords: biochemical activity; enzymatic biomarkers; metal availability; post-mining remediation; sewage sludge amendments; substrate enrichment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564693 PMCID: PMC9103250 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1(a) Experimental research field located near topsoil heaps in a degraded area. (b) Control plot adjacent to the degraded area with spontaneous vegetation.
Water and physical properties of the studied soil substrate (data from Halecki and Klatka, 2018).
| Layer | Mass Water Content | Bulk Density | Volumetric Water Content | Total Porosity | Capillary Porosity | Soil Moisture | Organic Mater Content | Soil Texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cm | g·g−1 | g·cm−3 | cm−3·cm−3 | % | % | % | % | |
| 10 | 0.41 | 1.54 | 0.45 | 44.11 | 38.40 | 36.35 | 28.99 | sandy clay loam |
| 20 | 0.37 | 1.47 | 0.48 | 48.17 | 37.61 | 30.25 | 29.53 | sandy clay loam |
| 30 | 0.45 | 1.55 | 0.49 | 49.30 | 39.84 | 23.32 | 25.50 | sandy clay loam |
| 50 | 0.43 | 1.57 | 0.52 | 49.18 | 40.00 | 20.41 | 23.00 | sandy clay loam |
The content of PTEs in the soil of the replanted area, as well as on the harvested plant parts.
| PTEs | Cr | Ni | Cu | Zn | Cd | Pb | Mn | Fe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil Substrate | ||||||||
|
| 45.24 | 76.93 | 36.65 | 177.91 | 5.86 | 84.10 | 78.53 | 13.34 |
|
| 38.76 | 34.86 | 45.53 | 431.02 | 6.10 | 98.54 | 41.23 | 14.40 |
|
| 28.45 | 51.32 | 29.02 | 384.21 | 5.03 | 74.84 | 35.12 | 27.21 |
|
| 78.89 | 60.38 | 91.25 | 466.92 | 4.25 | 141.13 | 34.67 | 26.08 |
|
| 41.63 | 45.89 | 78.67 | 343.09 | 7.90 | 97.05 | 35.45 | 17.65 |
|
| 53.55 | 54.54 | 64.55 | 355.54 | 8.69 | 36.45 | 61.95 | 16.43 |
|
| 53.63 | 43.25 | 23.95 | 278.30 | 2.94 | 78.76 | 0.87 | 20.76 |
|
| 45.54 | 35.75 | 26.97 | 357.76 | 3.98 | 98.08 | 0.90 | 18.98 |
| Plants | ||||||||
|
| 4.54 | 17.45 | 3.46 | 100.49 | 0.89 | 13.90 | 46.78 | 0.14 |
|
| 22.65 | 45.67 | 2.54 | 366.6 | 0.48 | 5.62 | 78.34 | 0.65 |
|
| 12.45 | 19.41 | 6.32 | 98.14 | 0.61 | 1.43 | 73.14 | 0.24 |
|
| 45.54 | 1.63 | 9.43 | 32.43 | 0.54 | 5.74 | 26.45 | 0.74 |
|
| 2.54 | 3.65 | 7.46 | 26.65 | 0.75 | 0.57 | 12.53 | 0.45 |
|
| 4.12 | 1.67 | 12.45 | 28.56 | 0.98 | 4.94 | 41.05 | 0.46 |
|
| 12.43 | 34.54 | 23.94 | 84.93 | 0.57 | 34.65 | 0.46 | 35.54 |
|
| 13.87 | 24.76 | 16.76 | 89.97 | 3.86 | 35.87 | 0.57 | 27.76 |
Mean content of enzymes in plants and soil substrate.
| Species | Invertase | Urease | Dehydrogenase |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.14 | 77.98 | 289.69 |
|
| 0.09 | 90.84 | 54.7 |
|
| 0.01 | 36.75 | 12.76 |
|
| 0.36 | 40.35 | 36.97 |
|
| 0.21 | 35.21 | 13.43 |
|
| 1.35 | 86.39 | 17.76 |
| Soil substrate | 0.23 | 52.92 | 13.01 |
Range of photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids), proline concentration, total flavonoids (TF) and total phenolic compound (TPC) in T. officinale (control site and studied plot) during vegetation period.
| Plant Species | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Carotenoids | Proline | TF | TPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg/g) DW | (mg/g) DW | (mg/g) DW | (µmol/g) DW | (mg/eqC/g) DW | (mg/eq GA/g) DW | |
|
| 15.08–43.88 (31.79) * | 3.25–16.14 (10.17) | 53.09–461.49 (215.56) | 15.76–20.15 (17.64) | 1.93–2.52 (2.32) | 3.29–4.68 (3.89) |
| 10.97–29.72 (23.51) | 3.17–10.16 (5.12) | 55.43–914.37 (354.74) | 7.58–17.22 (13.14) | 0.27 –2.95 (1.32) | 3.03–5.54 (3.82) |
*—Mean values are in parentheses.
Multivariate regression for proline as the dependent variable and biochemical parameters and PTEs.
| Variable | Slope | Error | Intercept | Error | r |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carotenoids | −3.69 | 2.77 | 204.05 | 62.43 | −0.23 | 0.19 |
| Chlorophyll a | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.88 | 0.45 | 0.24 | 0.17 |
| Chlorophyll b | −0.13 | 0.06 | 6.86 | 1.43 | −0.34 | 0.05 |
| TPC | −0.39 | 0.18 | 21.83 | 4.16 | −0.35 | 0.04 |
| TF | −0.02 | 0.02 | 2.43 | 0.35 | −0.27 | 0.12 |
| Mn | 1.06 | 0.25 | −7.66 | 5.58 | 0.62 | 0.03 |
| Cr | −1.69 | 2.67 | 110.73 | 6.43 | −0.11 | 0.53 |
| Fe | −0.43 | 0.12 | 1.65 | 2.73 | −0.54 | 0.32 |
| Ni | −0.71 | 0.33 | 3.63 | 7.36 | −0.36 | 0.04 |
| Cu | −1.27 | 0.36 | 58.42 | 8.04 | −0.53 | 0.32 |
| Zn | −3.91 | 1.67 | 238.83 | 37.69 | −0.38 | 0.03 |
| Cd | −0.11 | 0.04 | 4.97 | 0.85 | −0.46 | 0.01 |
| Pb | −2.06 | 0.55 | 81.52 | 12.34 | −0.55 | 0.32 |
Figure 2Spearman correlation for soil water parameters.
Figure 3Results of multivariate regression between proline (Pro) concentration and Mn content.
Figure 4Principal component analysis for water parameters in soil substrate and biochemical properties measured in T. officinale. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin ratio = 0.704; Barlett’s test p < 0.001.