Effects of Passivator on Cadmium Content and Physiological Characteristics of Lilium lancifolium

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0748

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to reduce the cadmium content of Lilium lancifolium, biochar, quicklime and serpentine were used as passivators, to explore the effects of different passivators on cadmium content in soil and organs of L. lancifolium, and the related physiological indexes through pot experiments. The results showed that cadmium content in soil decreased by 11.8%, 33.0% and 17.1%, respectively, under the application of the 3 passivators, available cadmium content decreased by 13.3%, 26.7% and 13.3%, respectively, and pH increased by 0.32, 0.48 and 0.43, respectively. The cadmium content in roots, bulbs, stems, leaves and flowers decreased by 8%, 22%, 15%, 24% and 2% with biochar addition, 25%, 30%, 29%, 34% and 22% with quicklime addition, and 19%, 26%, 16%, 32% and 26% with serpentine addition, respectively. In addition, the 3 passivators decreased malondialdehyde content by 32.60%、51.20% and 34.09%, and proline content by 8.32%, 16.76% and 10.5%, respectively, and increased catalase activity by 9.83%, 18.12% and 10.76%, superoxide dismutase activity by 17.37%, 38.76% and 18.78%, and peroxidase activity by 9.42%, 23.62% and 10.68%, respectively. The results demonstrated that all of the 3 passivators could effectively reduce the cadmium content in soil and organs of L. lancifolium, and enhance the ability of plant to resist cadmium stress. On the whole, quicklime has the superior performance on reducing cadmium.

Key words: soil heavy metal remediation, passivator, Lilium lancifolium, cadmium content, physiological characteristics

CLC Number:

S369

LEI Xingyu, HU Yao, DENG Gangqiao, LI Honggao, ZHANG Yuelong, HU Die, LI Lihui. Effects of Passivator on Cadmium Content and Physiological Characteristics of Lilium lancifolium[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(19): 66-72.

Figures/Tables 4

References 33

[1]	RINALDI M, MICALI A, MARINI H, et al. Cadmium, organ toxicity and therapeutic approaches: A review on brain, kidney and testis damage[J]. Current medicinal chemistry, 2017, 24(35):3879-3893.
[2]	李丽辉, 胡瑶, 雷星宇, 等. ⁶⁰Co-γ射线辐射对4种百合的诱变效应[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(8):1725-1730. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.08.1725
[3]	袁志鹰, 张梦通, 陈乃宏, 等. 百合药材、种植土壤及灌溉水中农药及重金属残留分析[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2018, 30(11):98-104.
[4]	李瑞琴, 于安芬, 白滨, 等. 食用百合-土壤体系中镉、铅和汞的潜在生态和健康风险[J]. 食品科学, 2016, 37(5):186-191.
[5]	钟楚彬, 纪雄辉, 谢运河, 等. 纳米矿物基土壤调理剂对水稻富集镉的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018, 276(4):154-158.
[6]	罗思颖, 周卫军, 潘诚良, 等. 钾硅钙微孔矿物肥对水稻重金属镉的降阻效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(29):90-94.
[7]	丁军, 唐熙雯. 综合降镉技术在重金属轻度污染农田中对稻米镉含量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(5):74-77.
[8]	WANG X B, YAN X, LI X Y. Environmental risk for application of ammonia-soda white mud in soils in China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2020(3).
[9]	袁启慧, 包立, 张乃明. 钝化剂种类和粒径对复合污染土壤镉铅有效态的影响[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2019, 36(2):192-197.
[10]	周春海, 张振强, 黄志红, 等. 不同钝化剂对酸性土壤中重金属的钝化修复研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(33):77-85.
[11]	金洪石, 金江华, 贺兆伟, 等. 生物炭和有机肥配施对重金属Pb胁迫下烟叶生长的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2020, 49(9):49-56.
[12]	金睿, 刘可星, 艾绍英, 等. 生物炭复配调理剂对镉污染土壤性状和小白菜镉吸收及其生理特性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2016(47):1480-1487.
[13]	段卓群. 硅钙基土壤调理剂对Cd污染稻田的修复应用研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2018.
[14]	谢晓梅, 廖敏, 方至萍, 等. 有机硅助剂协同对双季稻叶面喷施的氨基酸微量元素肥增效潜力初探[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2019, 41(4):641-648.
[15]	曹胜, 周卫军, 周雨舟, 等. 硅钙镁土壤调理剂对酸性镉污染土壤及稻米的降镉效果[J]. 河南农业科学, 2017, 46(12):54-58.
[16]	苗秀荣, 来雪慧, 李梦茜, 等. 不同钝化剂对土壤有效态重金属含量及其在小白菜中累积的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2020, 49(8):63-71.
[17]	SHI G R, ZHENG Z, LIU Caifeng, et al. Silicon influences cadmium translocation by altering subcellular distribution and chemical forms of cadmium in peanut roots[J]. Archives of agronomy and soil science, 2016, 118:365.
[18]	FAN J L, WEI X Z, WAN L C, et al. Disarrangement of actin filaments and Ca²⁺ gradient by CdCl₂ alters cell wall construction in Arabidopsis thaliana root hairs by inhibiting vesicular trafficking[J]. Journal of plant physiology, 2011, 168(11):1157-1167. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2011.01.031 URL
[19]	任露陆, 吴文成, 陈显斌, 等. 碳酸钙与氢氧化钙修复重金属污染土壤效果差异研究[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2016, 39(5):22-27.
[20]	LIANG J, YANG Z, TANG L, et al. Changes in heavy metal mobility and availability from contaminated wetland soil remediated with combined biochar-compost[J]. Chemosphere, 2017, 181:281-288. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.081 URL
[21]	谢武双, 陈卫平, 彭驰. 锰、镁元素对土壤pH值及镉有效性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(11):252-255.
[22]	张宇鹏, 谭笑潇, 陈晓远, 等. 无机硅叶面肥及土壤调理剂对水稻铅、镉吸收的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2020, 29(2):388-393.
[23]	赵家印, 席运官, 代慧杰, 等. 钝化剂与有机肥配施对土壤有效态重金属及其在生菜中累积的影响[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2019, 35(11):1460-1467.
[24]	田中学, 徐丽萍, 王旭. 土壤调理剂对小油菜镉吸收的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(1):100-106.
[25]	KAMRAN M, MALIK Z, PARVEEN A, et al. Biochar alleviates Cd phytotoxicity by minimizing bioavailability and oxidative stress in pakchoi (Brassica chinensis L.) cultivated in Cd-polluted soil[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2019, 250:109500. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109500 URL
[26]	罗惠莉, 周思, 周静如, 等. 生物炭基调理剂对土壤镉生物有效性的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2018(10):48-51.
[27]	张淼. 改良剂对镉污染土壤中水稻、油菜吸收积累镉的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2016.
[28]	CHENG B C, WANG P J, HO P C, et al. Nonlinear biotic ligand model for assessing alleviation effects of Ca, Mg, and K on Cd toxicity to soybean roots[J]. Ecotoxicology, 2017(26):942-955.
[29]	李伯平. 叶面阻控剂与土壤调理剂对稻米降镉效果研究[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2016(9):30-32.
[30]	张晓娟, 庄枫红. 绿豆对镉胁迫的生理响应[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2020, 59(15):71-74,79.
[31]	张家洋. 重金属铅镉短期胁迫对蓬莱蕉生理生化指标的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2016, 30(2):340-345.
[32]	卢倩云, 曹宇棽, 陈友明, 等. 镉胁迫下油菜毛状根的生理响应及铁钾含量[J]. 应用与环境生物学报, 2018, 24(6):1382-1389.
[33]	朱红霞, 赵红艳, 陈丽丽, 等. 铅镉胁迫下马齿苋的种子萌发和幼苗生理响应[J]. 西南林业大学学报:自然科学版, 2020(3):76-81.

处理	叶片数/片	株芽数/个	茎粗/cm	叶面积/cm²	鳞茎直径/cm	株高/cm
CK	67.00±6.50c	4.37±0.58a	0.72±0.07a	13.46±0.26a	5.6±0.50a	73.90±6.84a
T1	72.66±1.52b	5.66±3.51a	0.75±0.13a	15.11±1.61a	5.6±1.16a	74.27±2.34a
T2	85.33±5.85a	6.33±2.08a	0.74±0.09a	13.98±1.52a	6.4±0.91a	76.03±10.96a
T3	92.00±2.65a	8.33±2.52a	0.82±0.10a	13.50±1.00a	5.7±0.50a	83.43±3.27a

处理	叶片数/片	株芽数/个	茎粗/cm	叶面积/cm²	鳞茎直径/cm	株高/cm
CK	67.00±6.50c	4.37±0.58a	0.72±0.07a	13.46±0.26a	5.6±0.50a	73.90±6.84a
T1	72.66±1.52b	5.66±3.51a	0.75±0.13a	15.11±1.61a	5.6±1.16a	74.27±2.34a
T2	85.33±5.85a	6.33±2.08a	0.74±0.09a	13.98±1.52a	6.4±0.91a	76.03±10.96a
T3	92.00±2.65a	8.33±2.52a	0.82±0.10a	13.50±1.00a	5.7±0.50a	83.43±3.27a