Comparative Study on Remediation of Slight and Moderate Cadmium Contaminated Paddy Fields by Energy Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0498

Abstract

Abstract:

To clarify the remediation ability of energy sorghum in paddy fields, five energy sorghum varieties were used to carry out phytoremediation comparative experiments in paddy fields with slight and moderate cadmium (Cd) contamination. The Cd accumulation amount, enrichment coefficient, transfer coefficient and the soil Cd concentration change were measured, the correlation among these indexes were analyzed. The results showed that in slightly Cd contaminated paddy field (the total Cd concentration of soil was 0.59 mg/kg), the shoot Cd accumulation of five energy sorghum varieties was 13.62-34.70 g/hm², the enrichment coefficient was 1.53-3.38, and the transfer coefficient was 0.25-0.68. The shoot Cd accumulation of ‘Alto 2’ (V4) was significantly higher than that of ‘Alto 601’ (V1), ‘Alto 901’ (V2) and ‘Alto 1’ (V3) by 154.71%, 64.90% and 30.68%, respectively. The shoot Cd accumulation of V3 and ‘N51M4264’ (V5) was significantly higher than that of V1 by 94.89% and 141.42%, respectively. In moderately Cd contaminated paddy field (the total Cd concentration of soil was 1.89 mg/kg), the shoot Cd accumulation of the five energy sorghum varieties was 14.78-53.35 g/hm², the enrichment coefficient was 0.72-1.65, and the transfer coefficient was 0.24-0.43. In addition, the shoot Cd concentration of V3, V4 and V5 were significantly higher than that of V1 and V2 by 148.26%-260.98%. The enrichment coefficient was significantly and positively correlated with the transfer coefficient (P<0.01), but was negatively correlated with soil total Cd and soil available Cd concentration (P<0.05). The results showed that all the five energy sorghum varieties had better biological yield. ‘Alto2’ could be used for the remediation for moderately Cd contaminated paddy fields because of its higher biological yield, and good enrichment and transfer capacity. ‘Alto 601’ could be used for the safe production in slightly Cd contaminated paddy fields because of its relatively low Cd enrichment and transfer capacity.

Key words: Cd contaminated paddy fields, energy sorghum, phytoremediation, safe production, enrichment coefficient

LI Baizhong, HUANG Daoyou, XU Chao, ZHU Hanhua, ZHANG Quan. Comparative Study on Remediation of Slight and Moderate Cadmium Contaminated Paddy Fields by Energy Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(14): 41-47.

Figures/Tables 7

References 31

[1]	中华人民共和国环境保护部. 全国土壤污染状况调查公报[EB/OL].(2014-2-17). http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/sthjbgw/qt/201404/t20140417_270670.htm
[2]	方琳娜, 方正, 钟豫. 土壤重金属镉污染状况及其防治措施——以湖南省为例[J]. 现代农业科技, 2016(7):212-213.
[3]	黄道友, 朱奇宏, 朱捍华, 等. 重金属污染耕地农业安全利用研究进展与展望[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018, 39(6):1030-1043.
[4]	胡鹏杰, 李柱, 吴龙华. 我国农田土壤重金属污染修复技术、问题及对策诌议[J]. 农业现代化研究, 2018, 39(4):535-542.
[5]	ASHRAF S, ALI Q, ZAHIR Z A, et al. Phytoremediation: environmentally sustainable way for reclamation of heavy metal polluted soils[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2019, 174:714-727. doi: S0147-6513(19)30227-1 pmid: 30878808
[6]	任海彦, 胡健, 胡毅飞. 重金属污染土壤植物修复研究现状与展望[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(1):5-11.
[7]	赵首萍, 叶雪珠, 张棋, 等. 重金属污染土壤几种生物修复方式比较[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(20):83-91. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190500109
[8]	陈亚奎, 葛登文, 卢滇楠. 镉污染土壤的植物修复技术[J]. 环境生态学, 2020, 2(9):92-98.
[9]	谷雨, 蒋平, 谭丽, 等. 6种植物对土壤中镉的富集特性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(30):119-123. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18050032
[10]	贾伟涛, 吕素莲, 林康祺, 等. 高生物量经济植物修复重金属污染土壤研究进展[J]. 生物工程学报, 2020, 36(3):416-425.
[11]	谢运河, 纪雄辉, 吴家梅, 等. 镉砷污染土壤“三高”富集植物筛选与修复成本分析[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2020, 43(S1):116-121.
[12]	MICHAEL J W, MAW J H, HOUX F B. Maize, sweet sorghum,and high biomass sorghum ethanol yield comparison on marginal soils in Midwest USA[J]. Biomass and bioenergy, 2017, 107:164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.09.021 URL
[13]	FERNANDA M R C, ADRIANO T B, JOSÉ A R N, et al. Agronomic and energetic potential of biomass sorghum genotypes[J]. American journal of plant sciences, 2015, 6(6):1862-1873. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2015.611187 URL
[14]	BOUBACAR D, MENG L, CHAO C T, et al. Biomass yield,chemical composition and theoretical ethanol yield for different genotypes of energy sorghum cultivated on marginal land in China[J]. Industrial crops and products 2019, 137:221-230. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.05.030 URL
[15]	TIAN Y L, ZHANG H Y, GUO W, et al. Morphological responses,biomass yield,and bioenergy potential of sweet sorghum cultivated in cadmium-contaminated soil for biofuel[J]. International journal of green energy, 2015, 12:577-584. doi: 10.1080/15435075.2013.871722 URL
[16]	薛忠财, 李纪红, 李十中, 等. 能源作物甜高粱对镉污染农田的修复潜力研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2018, 38(4):1621-1627.
[17]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[18]	段明梦, 王帅, 黄道友, 等. 易降解有机物及其施加方式对高粱吸收镉的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019, 38(5):1000-1007.
[19]	蔡秋玲, 林大松, 王果, 等. 不同类型水稻镉富集与转运能力的差异分析[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2016, 35(6):1028-1033.
[20]	DONG J, HAO M M, FU J Y, et al. Potential bioethanol production from sweet sorghum on marginal land in China[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2019, 220:225-234. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.294 URL
[21]	BOUBACAR D, MENG L, CHAO C T, et al. Biomass yield,chemical composition and theoretical ethanol yield for different genotypes of energy sorghum cultivated on marginal land in China[J]. Industrial crops and products, 2019, 137:221-230. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.05.030 URL
[22]	SOUDEK P, NEJEDLY J, PARICI L, et al. The sorghum plants utilization for accumulation of heavy metals[J]. International proceedings of chemical biological and environmental science, 2013, 54:139-142.
[23]	余海波, 宋静, 骆永明, 等. 典型重金属污染农田能源植物示范种植研究[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2011, 23(3):71-76.
[24]	祁剑英, 杜天庆, 薛建福, 等. 能源作物甜高粱和玉米对土壤重金属的富集比较[J]. 玉米科学, 2017, 25(6):73-78.
[25]	杨泉, 王学华, 罗小仁, 等. 不同施肥水平下生物质高粱的生物量和重金属吸收效果的研究[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(9):138-142.
[26]	JIA W T, MIAO F F, LU S L, et al. Identification for the capability of Cd-tolerance,accumulation and translocation of 96 sorghum genotypes[J]. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 2017, 145:391-397. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.002 URL
[27]	WANG S, WEI S, JI D, et al. Co-planting Cd contaminated field using hyper accumulator,Solanum nigrum L. through interplant with low accumulation welshonion[J]. International journal of phytoremediation, 2015, 17(9):879-884. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2014.981247 URL
[28]	张璐. 产铁载体细菌强化甜高粱修复土壤重金属污染[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2014, 37(4):74-79.
[29]	SUN R, ZHOU Q. Heavy metal tolerance and hyper accumulation of higher plants and their molecular mechanisms: A review[J]. Acta phytoecologica sinica, 2005, 29(3):497-504.
[30]	郑海飘, 敖和军, 杜志艳, 等. 不同类型高粱对重金属镉吸收积累的动态变化[J]. 分子植物育种, 2018, 16(19):6481-6487.
[31]	中国饲料工业协会, 全国饲料工业标准化技术委员会秘书处, 国家饲料质量监督检验中心, 等. GB13078—2017,饲料卫生标准[S].

地点	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	阳离子交换量/(cmol/kg)	全Cd/(mg/kg)	有效Cd/(mg/kg)
湘潭县	6.9	48.3	2.21	212	19.2	19.9	0.59	0.19
渌口区	6.8	54.9	2.35	213	6.9	19.9	1.89	0.47

地点	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	阳离子交换量/(cmol/kg)	全Cd/(mg/kg)	有效Cd/(mg/kg)
湘潭县	6.9	48.3	2.21	212	19.2	19.9	0.59	0.19
渌口区	6.8	54.9	2.35	213	6.9	19.9	1.89	0.47

污染程度	品种编号	富集系数	转移系数
轻度污染	V1	1.53±0.08c	0.25±0.03c
	V2	2.61±0.35b	0.37±0.09b
	V3	1.73±0.13c	0.25±0.02c
	V4	3.38±0.41a	0.68±0.10a
	V5	1.98±0.20c	0.32±0.02b
中度污染	V1	0.82±0.10d	0.24±0.03d
	V2	0.72±0.09d	0.25±0.02d
	V3	1.22±0.08b	0.35±0.01b
	V4	1.65±0.10a	0.43±0.02a
	V5	1.05±0.04c	0.30±0.01c

污染程度	品种编号	富集系数	转移系数
轻度污染	V1	1.53±0.08c	0.25±0.03c
	V2	2.61±0.35b	0.37±0.09b
	V3	1.73±0.13c	0.25±0.02c
	V4	3.38±0.41a	0.68±0.10a
	V5	1.98±0.20c	0.32±0.02b
中度污染	V1	0.82±0.10d	0.24±0.03d
	V2	0.72±0.09d	0.25±0.02d
	V3	1.22±0.08b	0.35±0.01b
	V4	1.65±0.10a	0.43±0.02a
	V5	1.05±0.04c	0.30±0.01c

污染程度	品种编号	全Cd/(mg/kg)	有效Cd/(mg/kg)	全Cd降低率/%	有效Cd降低率/%
轻度污染	试验前	0.59±0.03a	0.19±0.03a
	V1	0.55±0.04a	0.18±0.02a	6.78	4.66
	V2	0.55±0.03a	0.19±0.01a	6.78	1.55
	V3	0.59±0.02a	0.18±0.03a	0.00	5.70
	V4	0.56±0.04a	0.18±0.02a	5.08	6.22
	V5	0.59±0.03a	0.20±0.02a	0.00	-4.15
中度污染	试验前	1.89±0.03a	0.47±0.03a
	V1	1.77±0.02bc	0.44±0.02ab	6.35	6.55
	V2	1.89±0.03a	0.48±0.03a	0.00	-2.11
	V3	1.80±0.02b	0.42±0.01b	4.76	10.78
	V4	1.79±0.03b	0.45±0.03ab	5.29	5.71
	V5	1.74±0.04c	0.45±0.02ab	7.94	4.86