Effects of Contaminated Soil on the Survival and Growth Performance of European (
European aspen
creosote oil
density
diesel oil
growth
hybrid aspen
survival
Journal
Plants (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2223-7747
Titre abrégé: Plants (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101596181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jul 2022
28 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
18
03
2022
revised:
15
07
2022
accepted:
22
07
2022
entrez:
12
8
2022
pubmed:
13
8
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study was conducted to assess the survival rates, growth, and chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) of four hybrid aspen (14, 191, 27, 291) and two European aspen (R3 and R4) clones cultivated in creosote- and diesel oil-contaminated soil treatments under three different plant densities: one plant per pot (low density), two plants per pot (medium density), and six plants per pot (high density) over a period of two years and three months. Evaluating the survival, growth, and Fv/Fm values of different plants is a prerequisite for phytoremediation to remediate polluted soils for ecological restoration and soil health. The results revealed that contaminated soils affected all plants’ survival rates and growth. However, plants grown in the creosote-contaminated soil displayed a 99% survival rate, whereas plants cultivated in the diesel-contaminated soil showed a 22−59% survival rate. Low plant density resulted in a higher survival rate and growth than in the other two density treatments. In contrast, the medium- and high-density treatments did not affect the plant survival rate and growth to a greater extent, particularly in contaminated soil treatments. The effects of clonal variation on the survival rate, growth, and Fv/Fm values were evident in all treatments. The results suggested that hybrid aspen clones 14 and 291, and European aspen clone R3 were suitable candidates for the phytoremediation experiment, as they demonstrated reasonable survival rates, growth, and Fv/Fm values across all treatments. A superior survival rate for clone 291, height and diameter growth, and stem dry biomass production for clone 14 were observed in all soil treatments. Overall, a reasonable survival rate (~75%) and Fv/Fm value (>0.75) for all plants in all treatments, indicating European aspen and hybrid aspen have considerable potential for phytoremediation experiments. As the experiment was set up for a limited period, this study deserves further research to verify the growth potential of different hybrid aspen and European aspen clones in different soil and density treatment for the effective phytoremediation process to remediate the contaminated soil.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35956448
pii: plants11151970
doi: 10.3390/plants11151970
pmc: PMC9370595
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Olvi-saätiö
ID : 201820767
Organisme : Niemi-saätiö
ID : 20200067
Organisme : koneen säätiö
ID : f5a0d4
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Environ Res. 2021 Jun;197:111031
pubmed: 33744268
ISME J. 2014 Oct;8(10):2131-42
pubmed: 25105905
Environ Pollut. 2008 Jun;153(3):523-5
pubmed: 18396364
Sci Total Environ. 2009 Jul 15;407(15):4461-4
pubmed: 19428052
Int J Phytoremediation. 2021;23(4):387-399
pubmed: 33174478
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Oct 1;566-567:1205-1214
pubmed: 27267716
Int J Phytoremediation. 2014;16(7-12):1148-69
pubmed: 24933908
J Chem Ecol. 2001 Jul;27(7):1513-23
pubmed: 11504041
Waste Manag. 2010 Jun;30(6):1032-42
pubmed: 20211551
J Hazard Mater. 2013 Nov 15;262:796-804
pubmed: 24140530
J Environ Manage. 2019 Jun 1;239:352-365
pubmed: 30921754
Int J Phytoremediation. 2019;21(13):1329-1340
pubmed: 31274011
Environ Pollut. 2014 Jan;184:443-8
pubmed: 24121419
Int J Phytoremediation. 2013;15(9):844-60
pubmed: 23819280
J Environ Manage. 2016 Dec 1;183(Pt 3):467-477
pubmed: 27614557
Dose Response. 2010 Jun 25;9(1):130-43
pubmed: 21431082
Ecol Lett. 2008 Nov;11(11):1189-1197
pubmed: 18684118
Int J Phytoremediation. 2018 Mar 21;20(4):352-361
pubmed: 29584469
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 1;8(1):2100
pubmed: 29391433
Environ Pollut. 2011 Mar;159(3):762-8
pubmed: 21185631
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2021 Jul;107(1):154-159
pubmed: 33830282
Tree Physiol. 2011 Dec;31(12):1319-34
pubmed: 22052656
Int J Phytoremediation. 2005;7(3):177-97
pubmed: 16285410
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2005;56:15-39
pubmed: 15862088
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 Dec;27(36):45555-45567
pubmed: 32803602
Sci Total Environ. 2011 Dec 1;410-411:112-8
pubmed: 21995876
Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Oct 1;42(19):7405-10
pubmed: 18939578
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019 Apr 30;171:753-770
pubmed: 30660969
Plant Cell Environ. 2018 May;41(5):1201-1232
pubmed: 28386947
Sci Total Environ. 2016 Sep 1;563-564:693-703
pubmed: 26524994
J Theor Biol. 2007 Jan 21;244(2):218-27
pubmed: 16989866
Biotechnology (N Y). 1995 May;13(5):468-74
pubmed: 9634787
J Exp Bot. 2000 Apr;51(345):659-68
pubmed: 10938857
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2010 Mar;12(2):355-63
pubmed: 20398241
J Environ Qual. 2007 Aug 31;36(5):1429-43
pubmed: 17766822