| Literature DB >> 36141889 |
Hong Wang1,2,3, Wei Lin1,3, Dongdong Zhang1,3, Rui Yang1,3, Wanlai Zhou1,3, Zhiyong Qi1,3.
Abstract
Much previous research has indicated most composts of pruning waste are characterized by potential phytotoxicity, it is highly correlated with the chemical compounds of raw materials. Cinnamomum camphora, a common kind of pruning waste in Southeast Asia and East Asia, is characterized by intense bioactivities due to complex chemical components. This study investigated the potential phytotoxicity of C. camphora pruning waste in light of germination and higher plant growth. C. camphora extracted from leaves completely inhibited seed germination and still showed suppression of root elongation at an extremely low dosage. C. camphora extract also displayed significant inhibition of nutrient absorption in tomato seedlings, including moisture, available nutrients (N, P and K) and key microelements (Fe, Mn, Zn and S). The gene expression of aquaporins and transporters of nitrate and phosphate was significantly up-regulated in roots. This could be regarded as a positive response to C. camphora extract for enhancing nutrient absorption. Moreover, the severe damage to the plasma membrane in roots caused by C. camphora extract might seriously affect nutrient absorption. Camphor is the main component of the C. camphora extract that may induce the phytotoxicity of plasma membrane damage, resulting in the inhibition of nutrient absorption and low biomass accumulation. This study provided a new understanding of the ecotoxicological effects of C. camphora pruning waste, indicating that the harmless disposal of pruning waste requires much attention and exploration in the future.Entities:
Keywords: Cinnamomum camphora; germination; nutrient absorption; phytotoxicity; pruning waste; root damage
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141889 PMCID: PMC9517094 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Seed germination of C. camphora extract (a,b) and deionized water samples (c). Deionized water samples are characterized by the same pH (5.5) and EC (0.8 mS/cm) value in 100 mg/mL of C. camphora extract. (The significant differences among different treatments are marked with different letters, p < 0.05).
Figure 2The growth (a) and available nutrient (b) (N, P and K) absorption of tomato seedlings after exposure to a C. camphora extract for 14 days. (The significant difference among treatments is marked with different letters, p < 0.05).
The growth of tomato seedlings after exposure to a C. camphora extract for 14 days.
| Treatments | Fresh Weight | Height/cm | Root Length/cm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant/g | Root/g | Shoot/g | |||
| control | 8.06 ± 0.37 a | 2.47 ± 0.40 a | 5.54 ± 0.59 a | 18.67 ± 2.14 a | 12.83 ± 2.77 a |
| 5 mg/mL | 6.45 ± 0.87 b | 2.29 ± 0.23 a | 4.17 ± 0.89 b | 16.43 ± 1.53 a | 8.85 ± 0.55 b |
| 20 mg/mL | 4.52 ± 0.67 c | 2.06 ± 0.19 a | 2.46 ± 0.75 c | 12.5 ± 1.45 b | 6.54 ± 0.98 b |
The difference among treatments is marked with different letters (p < 0.05).
The content of nutrient elements in the roots and leaves of tomato seedlings after exposure to C. camphora extract for 14 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| control | 0.43 ± 0.024 a | 0.11 ± 0.013 a | 0.03 ± 0.004 a | 5.54 ± 0.81 b | 0.18 ± 0.054 b | 4.17 ± 0.63 a | 3.93 ± 0.49 a |
| 5 mg/mL | 0.23 ± 0.015 b | 0.12 ± 0.010 a | 0.04 ± 0.004 a | 7.34 ± 0.80 a | 0.14 ± 0.034 b | 4.70 ± 0.62 a | 3.85 ± 0.98 a |
| 20 mg/mL | 0.25 ± 0.019 b | 0.09 ± 0.017 b | 0.025 ± 0.004 a | 4.31 ± 0.18 b | 0.48 ± 0.059 a | 4.26 ± 0.97 a | 4.94 ± 0.49 b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| control | 0.52 ± 0.053 a | 0.52 ± 0.050 a | 4.63 ± 1.37 a | 7.63 ± 0.48 a | 0.14 ± 0.02 a | 6.43 ± 0.95 a | 1.76 ± 0.43 a |
| 5 mg/mL | 0.27 ± 0.014 b | 0.40 ± 0.041 b | 3.99 ± 0.94 a | 7.43 ± 0.48 a | 0.11 ± 0.01 a | 6.99 ± 0.47 a | 1.72 ± 0.28 a |
| 20 mg/mL | 0.16 ± 0.023 c | 0.17 ± 0.028 c | 4.52 ± 0.73 a | 5.44 ± 0.24 b | 0.075 ± 0.01 b | 6.72 ± 1.13 a | 2.08 ± 0.41 a |
The difference among treatments is marked with different letters (p < 0.05).
Figure 3The relative gene expression in roots (a) and the ABA content (b) after exposure to C. camphora extract for 14 days. (The significant difference among different treatments is marked with different letters, p < 0.05.)
Figure 4Root stained by Evan’s blue (a) and MDA content (b) after exposure to a C. camphora extract for 14 days. (The significant difference among different treatments is marked with different letters, p < 0.05.)
The chemical components of C. camphora water extract.
| Sample | Source | Solvent (Ratio: | Extraction | Component (Content, %) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh leaves | Chengdu, China | Distilled water (1:10) | Shaked at 25 °C for 2 h | Camphor (50.19); Ethylene-glycol (28.20) | This study |
| Fresh leaves | Zhejiang, China | Distilled water (1:10) | Shaked at 25 °C for 48 h | Linalool (53.71); α-Terpienol (24.53); Camphor (8.45) | [ |
| Fresh leaves | Jiangxi, China | - | Microwave extraction at | Camphor (66.10); Eucalyptol (15.45) | [ |
| Distilled water (1:5) | Hydro distillation for 4 h | Camphor (53.68); Eucalyptol (17.55) α-Pinene (5.04); | [ | ||
| Fallen leaves | Zhejiang, China | Distilled water (1:10) | Shaked at 25 °C for 48 h | Camphor (34.35); Linalool (26.31); α-Terpienol (5.24) | [ |
| Fresh leaves | Hetauda, Nepal | Distilled water | Hydro distillation for 4 h | Camphor (36.5); Camphene (11.7) | [ |
| Fresh leaves | Suzhou, China | - | Hydro distillation for 6 h | Camphor (40.54); Linalool (22.92) | [ |
| Fresh leaves | Guangzhou, China | - | Hydro distillation for 2 h | Linalool (26.6); Eucalyptol (16.8); α-Terpienol (8.7) | [ |