| Literature DB >> 35878264 |
Jiaxin Chen1, Jianfang Guo1, Zuran Li2, Xinran Liang1, Yihong You1, Mingrui Li1, Yongmei He1, Fangdong Zhan1.
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) exist widely in soil polluted by heavy metals and have significant effects on plant growth and cadmium (Cd) uptake. Cd contents differ among wasteland, farmland and slopeland soils in a lead-zinc mining area in Yunnan Province, Southwest China. The effects of AMF on maize growth, root morphology, low-molecular-weight organic acid (LMWOA) concentrations and Cd uptake were investigated via a root-bag experiment. The results show that AMF increased maize growth on Cd-polluted soils, resulting in increases in root length, surface area, volume and branch number, with the effects being stronger in farmland than in wasteland and slopeland soils; increased malic acid and succinic acid secretion 1.3-fold and 1.1-fold, respectively, in roots on farmland soil; enhanced the iron- and manganese-oxidized Cd concentration by 22.6%, and decreased the organic-bound Cd concentration by 12.9% in the maize rhizosphere on farmland soil; and increased Cd uptake 12.5-fold and 1.7-fold in shoots and by 25.7% and 86.6% in roots grown on farmland and slopeland soils, respectively. Moreover, shoot Cd uptake presented significant positive correlations with root surface area and volume and LMWOA concentrations. Thus, these results indicated the possible mechanism that the increased maize Cd uptake induced by AMF was closely related to their effect on root morphology and LMWOA secretion, with the effects varying under different Cd pollution levels.Entities:
Keywords: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus; cadmium uptake; cadmium-polluted soil; root exudates; root morphology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35878264 PMCID: PMC9322003 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10070359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Soil physicochemical parameters.
| Soils | pH | CEC (cmol/kg) | Total N (g/kg) | Total P (g/kg) | Available N (mg/kg) | Available P (mg/kg) | Available K (mg/kg) | Organic Matter (mg/kg) | Cd Content (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wasteland | 6.2 | 9.0 | 0.66 | 0.43 | 103.5 | 8.8 | 85.2 | 34.0 | 25.3 |
| Farmland | 6.4 | 9.3 | 1.64 | 0.47 | 86.3 | 13.3 | 122.5 | 22.3 | 6.7 |
| Slopeland | 6.8 | 26.0 | 0.44 | 0.49 | 34.5 | 22.8 | 63.6 | 3.1 | 4.3 |
AMF infection characteristics. The data in the table are the mean ± standard deviation of 4 replicates, and the different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05), respectively.
| Soils | Colonization Rate (%) | Spore Number (n/g) |
|---|---|---|
| Wasteland | 30.8 ± 0.3 b | 60 ± 1.2 b |
| Farmland | 36.8 ± 0.3 a | 64 ± 1.3 a |
| Slopeland | 40.4 ± 0.6 a | 57 ± 1.0 b |
Effects of AMF on maize plant height and biomass. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments; “ns” “*” and “**” mean p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 according to two-way analysis of variance, respectively.
| Soils | Treatment | Height (cm) | Shoot Biomass (g/Plant) | Root Biomass (g/Plant) | Plant Biomass (g/Plant) | Mycorrhizal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wasteland | CK | 20.3 ± 0.85 d | 1.30 ± 0.05 d | 0.40 ± 0.04 c | 1.70 ± 0.04 d | - |
| AMF | 20.9 ± 0.47 d | 1.40 ± 0.04 d | 0.48 ± 0.01 c | 1.88 ± 0.05 d | 110.4 ± 0.02 c | |
| Farmland | CK | 13.1 ± 0.91 e | 0.57 ± 0.08 e | 0.40 ± 0.04 c | 0.97 ± 0.08 e | - |
| AMF | 52.6 ± 1.58 b | 11.35 ± 0.38 b | 2.29 ± 0.19 b | 13.64 ± 0.38 b | 1413.3 ± 1.29 a | |
| Slopeland | CK | 27.7 ± 0.70 c | 3.03 ± 0.21 c | 0.77 ± 0.07 bc | 3.80 ± 0.23 c | - |
| AMF | 54.7 ± 1.16 a | 13.25 ± 0.34 a | 2.53 ± 0.21 a | 15.78 ± 0.38 a | 431.1 ± 0.25 b | |
| Two-way analysis of variance | ||||||
| AMF | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| Soil | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| AMF × Soil | ** | ** | * | ** | * | |
Effects of AMF on the morphology of maize roots. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments; “ns” and “**” mean no significance and p < 0.01 according to two-way analysis of variance, respectively.
| Soils | Treatment | Root Length (m) | Root Surface Area (cm2) | Average Root Diameter (mm) | Root Volume (cm3) | Branch Number (103) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wasteland | CK | 7.1 ± 1.2 d | 146.6 ± 12.9 d | 0.66 ± 0.03 a | 2.5 ± 0.1 e | 6.6 ± 0.12 d |
| AMF | 12.2 ± 0.6 d | 159.0 ± 14.9 d | 0.56 ± 0.04 b | 3.3 ± 0.4 d | 7.2 ± 0.39 d | |
| Farmland | CK | 10.5 ± 0.9 d | 95.7 ± 4.2 e | 0.47 ± 0.02 c | 1.1 ± 0.1 f | 11.7 ± 2.16 d |
| AMF | 56.79 ± 8.5 c | 727.5 ± 9.3 b | 0.37 ± 0.04 de | 8.6 ± 0.5 b | 71.5 ± 1.6 c | |
| Slopeland | CK | 75.7 ± 4.9 b | 687.9 ± 37.1 c | 0.41 ± 0.05 d | 7.4 ± 0.1 c | 151.3 ± 9.8 b |
| AMF | 103.9 ± 5.0 a | 965.9 ± 47.8 a | 0.33 ± 0.04 e | 10.3 ± 0.5 a | 216.4 ± 1.3 a | |
| Two-way analysis of variance | ||||||
| AMF | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| Soil | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| AMF × Soil | ** | ** | ns | ** | ** | |
Figure 1Effects of AMF on low-molecular-weight organic acid concentrations secreted by maize roots. (A): the concentration of oxalic acid secreted by maize roots with and without AMF inoculation; (B): the concentration of tartaric acid secreted by maize roots with and without AMF inoculation; (C): the concentration of malic acid secreted by maize roots with and without AMF inoculation; (D): the concentration of citric acid secreted by maize roots with and without AMF inoculation; (E): the concentration of succinic acid secreted by maize roots with and without AMF inoculation. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments; “**” mean p < 0.01 according to two-way ANOVA.
Figure 2Effects of AMF on the morphology and availability of soil cadmium. (A): the concentrations of exchangeable Cd in with and without AMF inoculation soils; (B): the concentrations of iron- and manganese-oxidized Cd in with and without AMF inoculation soils; (C): the concentrations of organic-bound Cd in with and without AMF inoculation soils; (D): the concentrations of available Cd in with and without AMF inoculation soils. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments; “ns”, “*” and “**” mean no significance, p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 according to two-way ANOVA, respectively.
Figure 3Effects of AMF on cadmium concentration and uptake in maize. (A): the shoot Cd concentrations of maize with and without AMF inoculation; (B): the shoot Cd uptake of maize with and without AMF inoculation; (C): the root Cd concentrations of maize with and without AMF inoculation; (D): the root Cd uptake of maize with and without AMF inoculation. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among treatments; “**” mean p < 0.01 according to two-way ANOVA.