Biochar Application Under Chromium (Ⅵ) Stress: Effect on Physiological Response and Chromium (Ⅵ) Absorption of Maize Seedlings

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20200100070

Abstract

Abstract:

The objective is to study the effect of biochar application on the physiological response and chromium absorption of maize seedlings under Cr (Ⅵ) stress. Maize was used as the test material, 5 treatments were set up. The biological indexes were determined, such as the aboveground and underground biomass of maize seedlings, the contents of malonaldehyde (MDA), proline, soluble sugar, soluble protein in leaves, the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT). Under Cr (Ⅵ) stress, the fresh weight of aboveground part under biochar treatment was increased by 12.73%, 32.73% and 38.40% compared with that of CK1, respectively, and BC450 and BC600 treatment had significant difference compared with CK1(P<0.05); the content of chromium in the root system of BC600 treatment was only 1.258 mg/kg, which reduced the amount of chromium absorption by 65.75%, while the content of chromium in the aerial part was only 0.36 mg/kg. The activity of MDA, proline, CAT, POD and SOD increased significantly (P<0.05). Compared with CK1, MDA, proline, POD, CAT and SOD decreased significantly (P<0.05) in BC600 treatment, but the content of soluble protein and soluble sugar increased significantly (P<0.05). According to comprehensive assessment, the degree of Cr (Ⅵ) stress on maize seedling of BC treatment is lower than that of the control, and biochar applied has certain fixed effect on Cr (Ⅵ), especially BC600.

Key words: Cr (Ⅵ) stress, biochar, maize seedling, physiological response, chromium absorption

CLC Number:

Ge Chunhui, Zhang Yunshun, Tang Guangmu. Biochar Application Under Chromium (Ⅵ) Stress: Effect on Physiological Response and Chromium (Ⅵ) Absorption of Maize Seedlings[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(27): 20-25.

Figures/Tables 10

References 25

[1]	杨文玲, 巩涛, 刘莹莹, 等. 铅铬胁迫对小麦幼苗抗氧化酶活性和丙二醛含量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(6):45-50.
[2]	邵云, 王文斐, 李学梅, 等. 三种有机物料对铬污染土壤理化性质及小麦生长发育特征的影响[J] 麦类作物学报, 2016,36(6):779-788.
[3]	杨林曦. 生物炭对土壤中铬形态影响的研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2017.
[4]	景明, 李烨, 陈盈余, 等. 土壤中添加生物炭对Cr(Ⅵ)的迁移锁定作用研究[J]. 现代地质, 2014,6:1195-1201.
[5]	郭丽莉, 李绪谦, 吕峰, 等. 固定剂对土壤中Cr形态变化及生物可利用性的影响[J]. 安全与环境报, 2012,4:210-215.
[6]	黄辉, 高峡, 王娟. 六价铬对玉米幼苗生长及抗氧化系统的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011,30(4):633-638.
[7]	Dong X, Ma L Q, Li Y. Characteristics and mechanisms of hexavalent chromium removal by biochar from sugar beet tailing[J]. Hazard Mater, 2011,190(1-3):909-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.04.008 URL
[8]	吴黛灵, 张记市, 刘文, 等. 玉米皮渣制备生物炭吸附含Cr(Ⅵ)废水研究[J]. 齐鲁工业大学学报, 2016,8:34-40.
[9]	杨林曦. 生物炭对土壤中铬形态影响的研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2017.
[10]	李合生, 孙群, 赵世杰. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000: 165-167.
[11]	崔德杰, 张玉龙. 土壤重金属污染现状与修复技术研究进展[J]. 土壤通报, 2004,6:366-370.
[12]	蒋婷婷, 喻恺, 罗启仕, 等. HDTMA改性蒙脱土对土壤Cr(Ⅵ)的吸附稳定化研究[J]. 环境化学, 2016,37(3):1039-1047.
[13]	陈永林, 陈小锦, 丛玮玮, 等. 不同价态铬对玉米幼苗铬吸收动力学特征及生长发育的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017,45(3):46-50.
[14]	巢丽仪, 秦华明, 陈结清. 重金属铬胁迫对玉米幼苗生长的影响[J]. 种子, 2008,27(3):28-31.
[15]	陈志良, 袁志辉, 黄玲, 等. 生物炭来源、性质及其在重金属污染土壤修复中的研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报 2016,25(11):1879-1884.
[16]	甘文君, 何跃, 张孝飞. 秸秆生物炭修复电镀厂污染土壤的效果和作用机理初探[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2012,28(3):305-309.
[17]	郭茹, 洪坚平. 不同生物炭配施腐植酸对铬污染土壤中油菜品质及铬含量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2018,46(3):397-401.
[18]	Zhang Q R, Li Y X, Yang Q G, et al. Distinguished Cr(Ⅵ) capture with rapid and superior capability using polydopamine microsphere: behavior and mechanism[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2018,342:732-740. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.08.061 URL pmid: 28918291
[19]	张康, 吴小清, 张华, 等. 磁性水葫芦生物炭对废水中六价铬的吸附性能[J]. 桂林理工大学学报, 2019,12:1-10.
[20]	张学洪. 重金属污染土壤的植物修复技术研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011.
[21]	盛海君, 杜岩, 居静, 等. 玉米根系Cr⁶+吸收动力学特征及幼苗生长的反应[J].环境科学与技术 , 2013(8):34-40.
[22]	马成仓, 李清芳, 等. 汞对玉米幼苗膜脂过氧化及体内保护系统的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 1997,17(2):217-220.
[23]	孔祥生, 郭秀璞, 张妙霞, 等. 镉胁迫对玉米苗生长及生理生化的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 1999,18(2):111-113.
[24]	巴青松, 张兰兰, 李桂萍, 等. 根施脯氨酸对铬胁迫下小麦幼苗生长的生理影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报:自然科学, 2019,34(4):576-582.
[25]	赵哈林, 李瑾, 周瑞莲, 等. 风吹时间和强度对玉米幼苗膜透性影响及其膜保护系统响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2016,5:519-526.

	根长/cm	根鲜重/g	株高/cm	地上部分鲜重/g
CK0	19.76±2.51a	2.66±0.32a	24.94±1.82a	4.84±0.36a
CK1	15.47±1.48b	2.32±0.21b	20.61±2.43b	4.08±0.46b
BC300	17.44±2.44ab	2.57±0.30ab	22.78±1.55a	4.51±0.29ab
BC450	20.50±3.52a	2.91±0.34a	21.63±2.96ab	4.28±0.49b
BC600	21.41±3.64a	2.73±0.40a	23.27±2.58a	4.60±0.52a

	根长/cm	根鲜重/g	株高/cm	地上部分鲜重/g
CK0	19.76±2.51a	2.66±0.32a	24.94±1.82a	4.84±0.36a
CK1	15.47±1.48b	2.32±0.21b	20.61±2.43b	4.08±0.46b
BC300	17.44±2.44ab	2.57±0.30ab	22.78±1.55a	4.51±0.29ab
BC450	20.50±3.52a	2.91±0.34a	21.63±2.96ab	4.28±0.49b
BC600	21.41±3.64a	2.73±0.40a	23.27±2.58a	4.60±0.52a

	丙二醛	脯氨酸	可溶性糖	可溶蛋白	SOD酶活	POD酶活	CAT酶活
丙二醛	1.000	0.827^**	-0.875^*	-0.846^**	0.952^**	0.822^**	0.603^*
脯氨酸	0.827^**	1.000	-0.895^**	-0.758^**	0.824^**	0.794^**	0.539^*
可溶性糖	-0.875^**	-0.895^**	1.000	0.922^**	-0.907^**	-0.874^**	-0.693^**
可溶蛋白	-0.846^**	-0.758^**	0.922^**	1.000	-0.861^**	-0.778^**	-0.697^**
SOD酶活	0.952^**	0.824^**	-0.907^**	-0.861^**	1.000	0.903^**	0.663^**
POD酶活	0.822^**	0.794^**	-0.874^**	-0.778^**	0.903^**	1.000	0.731^**
CAT酶活	0.603^*	0.539^*	-0.693^**	-0.697^**	0.663^**	0.731^**	1.000

	丙二醛	脯氨酸	可溶性糖	可溶蛋白	SOD酶活	POD酶活	CAT酶活
丙二醛	1.000	0.827^**	-0.875^*	-0.846^**	0.952^**	0.822^**	0.603^*
脯氨酸	0.827^**	1.000	-0.895^**	-0.758^**	0.824^**	0.794^**	0.539^*
可溶性糖	-0.875^**	-0.895^**	1.000	0.922^**	-0.907^**	-0.874^**	-0.693^**
可溶蛋白	-0.846^**	-0.758^**	0.922^**	1.000	-0.861^**	-0.778^**	-0.697^**
SOD酶活	0.952^**	0.824^**	-0.907^**	-0.861^**	1.000	0.903^**	0.663^**
POD酶活	0.822^**	0.794^**	-0.874^**	-0.778^**	0.903^**	1.000	0.731^**
CAT酶活	0.603^*	0.539^*	-0.693^**	-0.697^**	0.663^**	0.731^**	1.000