Physiological Characteristics and Stress Resistance of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica: in Artificial Wetland Sewage Treatment System

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010039

Abstract

Abstract:

To compare the physiological characteristics and stress resistance of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica in artificial wetland sewage treatment system, the artificial wetland system of Xiangfen County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Shanxi Province was selected in this study. The leaf and root samples of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica in wetland and control soil were collected, and the physiological indexes and stress resistance indexes were measured. The basic physical and chemical properties of the wetland were also detected. The results showed that the contents of chlorophyll, soluble protein and malondialdehyde (MDA) of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica leaves in the wetland were increased compared with those of the control (from 23.56 mg/g, 15.89 mg/g; 0.98 g/L, 1.43 g/L; 0.11 nmol/mg protein, 0.29 nmol/mg protein increased to 44.27 mg/g, 33.17 mg/g; 2.10 g/L, 2.61 g/L; 0.7 nmol/mg protein, 1.01 nmol/mg protein, respectively), but there was no obvious difference. The SOD activities in leaves, the soluble protein contents and CYP450 activities in roots of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica were significantly enhanced compared with those of the control (from 0.32 U/mg protein, 32.68 U/mg protein; 0.09 g/L, 0.38 g/L; 176.98 U/mg protein, 39.96 U/mg protein increased to 54.73 U/mg protein, 43.79 U/mg protein; 0.11 g/L, 0.45 g/L; 361.46 U/mg protein, 50.79 U/mg protein, respectively). Compared with Zizania aquatica, the MDA content in Phragmites communis in the wetland was lower, while the activities of SOD and CYP450 were higher. These results suggest that both Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica are good restoration plants in artificial wetland. The interaction of SOD and CYP450 and the increase of soluble protein and chlorophyll showing an adaptive response of plants to stress, and the stress resistance ability of Phragmites communis is relatively better than that of Zizania aquatica. Besides, there is a significantly positive correlation between Phragmites communis root soluble protein or Zizania aquatica root SOD and phosphorus (P) or potassium (K) in roots, indicating that plant biochemical indicators are closely related to soil nutrients.

Key words: artificial wetland sewage treatment system, physiological characteristics, stress resistance, chemical and biochemical analysis, Phragmites communis, Zizania aquatica

CLC Number:

S184

Zhao Yufei, Mao Wei, Pang Lixin, Li Ruijin, Li Suqing. Physiological Characteristics and Stress Resistance of Phragmites communis and Zizania aquatica: in Artificial Wetland Sewage Treatment System[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(8): 60-66.

Figures/Tables 7

References 23

[1]	鲁敏, 曾庆福, 谭远友 . 七种湿地植物处理污水的比较研究[J]. 武汉科技学院学报, 2007,20(9):25-28.
[2]	Ge S, Wang H Y . Research progress on constructed wetland plants and their decontamination effects[J]. Environmental Protection Science, 2012,38(1):19-22,36.
[3]	弋舒昱, 万红友 . 人工湿地植物及其去污效果研究进展[J]. 环境保护科学, 2012,38(01):19-22,36.
[4]	马佳, 覃晓艳, 周希 . 四种水生植物在污水胁迫下的生理生化特性研究[J]. 绿色科技, 2013,42(05):52-55.
[5]	李林锋, 年跃刚, 蒋高明 . 植物吸收在人工湿地脱氮除磷中的贡献[J]. 环境科学研究, 2009,22(03):337-342.
[6]	李瑞玲 . 人工湿地系统对酸性重金属废水的去除效果及机理研究[D]. 湘潭:湘潭大学, 2010.
[7]	解纯芬 . 人工湿地不同植被净化水质效果与生理特性[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017,45(06):299-304.
[8]	Li S Q, Liber K . Influence of different revegetation choices on plant community and soil development nine years after initial planting on a reclaimed coal gob pile in the Shanxi mining area, China[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2018,618:1314-1323.
[9]	秦雷 . 图们江下游湿地土壤微生物群落特征及其影响因素分析[D]. 吉林:延边大学, 2016.
[10]	陈贵, 赵国华, 张红梅 , 等. 沼液浇灌对茭白氮磷钾养分吸收利用特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016,28(3):474-481.
[11]	邓春暖, 章光新, 潘响亮 . 干旱胁迫对莫莫格湿地芦苇叶片光合生理生态的影响机理研究[J]. 湿地科学, 2012,10(2):136-141.
[12]	曾全超, 李鑫, 董扬红 , 等. 陕北黄土高原土壤性质及其生态化学计量的纬度变化特征[J]. 自然资源学报, 2015,30(5):870-879.
[13]	汪本勤 . 植物SOD的研究进展[J]. 河北农业科学, 2008,12(3):6-9.
[14]	夏民旋, 王维, 袁瑞 , 等. 超氧化物歧化酶与植物抗逆性[J]. 分子植物育种, 2015,13(11):2633-2646.
[15]	刘峄, 杨静慧, 吴莹 , 等. 两个地区四种湿地植物生理特性比较[J]. 北方园艺, 2014(16):53-55.
[16]	马新明, 王小纯, 丁军 . 钾肥对砂姜黑土不同粒型冬小麦穗粒发育及生理特性影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2000,33(3):67-72.
[17]	李洋, 于丽杰, 金晓霞 . 植物重金属胁迫耐受机制[J]. 中国生物工程杂志, 2015,35(9):94-104.
[18]	周录英, 李向东, 汤笑 , 等. 氮、磷、钾肥不同用量对花生生理特性及产量品质的影响[J]. 2007,18(11):2468-2474.
[19]	余小林, 曹家树, 崔辉梅 , 等. 植物细胞色素P450[J]. 中国细胞生物学学报, 2004,26:561-566.
[20]	刘宛, 李培军, 周启星 , 等. 植物细胞色素P450酶系的研究进展及其与外来物质的关系[J]. 环境污染治理技术与设备, 2001,2(5):1-9.
[21]	李昕馨, 宋玉芳, 杨道丽 , 等. 小麦细胞色素P450作为土壤污染生物标记物的研究[J]. 环境化学, 2006,25(3):283-287.
[22]	张倩 . 黑麦草对山西工矿区PAHs和汞复合污染土壤的生态适应性研究[D]. 太原:山西大学, 2014.
[23]	董静 . AMF-美人蕉共生系统降解水中阿特拉津特性的研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学, 2017.

项目	Cd/ (mg/kg)	As/ (mg/kg)	Hg/ (mg/kg)	Cr/ (mg/kg)	Ni/ (mg/kg)	Cu/ (mg/kg)	Pb/ (mg/kg)	Zn/ (mg/kg)	有机质/ (g/kg)
测定结果	0.264	7.844	0.082	71.480	37.760	27.060	10.010	157.200	10.110
国家标准(GB 15618—1995)	0.200	15.000	0.150	90.000	40.000	35.000	35.000	100.000	—

项目	Cd/ (mg/kg)	As/ (mg/kg)	Hg/ (mg/kg)	Cr/ (mg/kg)	Ni/ (mg/kg)	Cu/ (mg/kg)	Pb/ (mg/kg)	Zn/ (mg/kg)	有机质/ (g/kg)
测定结果	0.264	7.844	0.082	71.480	37.760	27.060	10.010	157.200	10.110
国家标准(GB 15618—1995)	0.200	15.000	0.150	90.000	40.000	35.000	35.000	100.000	—

项目	全N	全P	全K
芦苇叶（实验组）	17.22±1.36	2.52±1.63	3.68±0.78
茭白叶（实验组）	16.86±1.41	3.34±0.49	4.61±0.45
芦苇叶（对照组）	14.49±1.79	1.95±0.45	2.98±0.34
茭白叶（对照组）	12.48±9.08	2.65±0.88	3.12±0.32
芦苇根（实验组）	24.40±11.34	2.61±0.86	9.09±0.83
茭白根（实验组）	19.61±2.14	2.83±1.22	8.62±0.27
芦苇根（对照组）	19.32±6.76	2.03±0.54	7.86±0.67
茭白根（对照组）	14.38±2.76	2.16±1.01	6.32±0.57

项目	全N	全P	全K
芦苇叶（实验组）	17.22±1.36	2.52±1.63	3.68±0.78
茭白叶（实验组）	16.86±1.41	3.34±0.49	4.61±0.45
芦苇叶（对照组）	14.49±1.79	1.95±0.45	2.98±0.34
茭白叶（对照组）	12.48±9.08	2.65±0.88	3.12±0.32
芦苇根（实验组）	24.40±11.34	2.61±0.86	9.09±0.83
茭白根（实验组）	19.61±2.14	2.83±1.22	8.62±0.27
芦苇根（对照组）	19.32±6.76	2.03±0.54	7.86±0.67
茭白根（对照组）	14.38±2.76	2.16±1.01	6.32±0.57

项目	SOD/(U/mg protein)	Protein/(g/L)	MDA/(nmol/mg protein)	CYP450/(U/g protein)
芦苇叶（实验组）	54.73±2.46^**§	2.10±0.73	0.70±0.13	13.12±1.83^**§§
茭白叶（实验组）	43.79±1.23^ΔΔ	2.61±0.88	1.01±0.29	5.02±0.53^ΔΔ
芦苇叶（对照组）	40.32±2.17	0.98±0.26	0.11±0.02	10.12±1.59
茭白叶（对照组）	32.68±0.88	1.43±0.38	0.29±0.04	3.97±0.38
芦苇根（实验组）	1044.34±38.31^##□□	0.11±0.04^#□	——	361.46±79.54^##□
茭白根（实验组）	100.64±18.61^$$	0.45±0.21^$	——	50.79±15.46^$$
芦苇根（对照组）	864.98±28.94	0.09±0.02	——	176.98±42.65
茭白根（对照组）	85.93±6.77	0.38±0.15	——	39.96±4.18