农业环境科学学报
農業環境科學學報
농업배경과학학보
Journal of Agro-Environment Science
2015年
4期
619-626
,共8页
杨亚洲%张春华%郑青松%张春银%葛滢
楊亞洲%張春華%鄭青鬆%張春銀%葛瀅
양아주%장춘화%정청송%장춘은%갈형
盐生植物%镉%耐性%亚细胞分布
鹽生植物%鎘%耐性%亞細胞分佈
염생식물%력%내성%아세포분포
halophyte%cadmium%tolerance%subcellular distribution
采用水培试验方法,比较了不同类型盐生植物碱蓬和滨藜的Cd耐性,研究了两者对Cd和Na的富集规律及亚细胞水平上的Cd解毒机制差异。结果表明,Cd胁迫下碱蓬和滨藜的根长、株高及干重等均受到不同程度的抑制,两者的表观毒害症状及对Cd的响应敏感度也存在明显差异;根系耐性指数可以作为评价两者Cd耐性的指标,碱蓬表现出更强的Cd耐性。另外,除1μmol·L-1 Cd胁迫下,碱蓬根表的单位面积Cd吸附量均显著高于滨藜;两者吸收的Na大量转运至地上部,吸收的Cd则主要富集在根部,但碱蓬对Cd的转运能力比滨藜弱。亚细胞分布分析发现,两种盐生植物各器官中Cd均主要分布于细胞壁,其次为胞液;细胞壁的固定为两者亚细胞水平上的主要Cd解毒机制,且碱蓬不同器官细胞壁的固定能力比滨藜强,根部Cd亚细胞分布特性对Cd从根部向地上部转运有显著影响。Cd胁迫除产生直接毒害外,也影响碱蓬和滨藜地上部及根部的Na含量,干扰了两者不同器官及亚细胞水平上的正常Na稳态。
採用水培試驗方法,比較瞭不同類型鹽生植物堿蓬和濱藜的Cd耐性,研究瞭兩者對Cd和Na的富集規律及亞細胞水平上的Cd解毒機製差異。結果錶明,Cd脅迫下堿蓬和濱藜的根長、株高及榦重等均受到不同程度的抑製,兩者的錶觀毒害癥狀及對Cd的響應敏感度也存在明顯差異;根繫耐性指數可以作為評價兩者Cd耐性的指標,堿蓬錶現齣更彊的Cd耐性。另外,除1μmol·L-1 Cd脅迫下,堿蓬根錶的單位麵積Cd吸附量均顯著高于濱藜;兩者吸收的Na大量轉運至地上部,吸收的Cd則主要富集在根部,但堿蓬對Cd的轉運能力比濱藜弱。亞細胞分佈分析髮現,兩種鹽生植物各器官中Cd均主要分佈于細胞壁,其次為胞液;細胞壁的固定為兩者亞細胞水平上的主要Cd解毒機製,且堿蓬不同器官細胞壁的固定能力比濱藜彊,根部Cd亞細胞分佈特性對Cd從根部嚮地上部轉運有顯著影響。Cd脅迫除產生直接毒害外,也影響堿蓬和濱藜地上部及根部的Na含量,榦擾瞭兩者不同器官及亞細胞水平上的正常Na穩態。
채용수배시험방법,비교료불동류형염생식물감봉화빈려적Cd내성,연구료량자대Cd화Na적부집규률급아세포수평상적Cd해독궤제차이。결과표명,Cd협박하감봉화빈려적근장、주고급간중등균수도불동정도적억제,량자적표관독해증상급대Cd적향응민감도야존재명현차이;근계내성지수가이작위평개량자Cd내성적지표,감봉표현출경강적Cd내성。령외,제1μmol·L-1 Cd협박하,감봉근표적단위면적Cd흡부량균현저고우빈려;량자흡수적Na대량전운지지상부,흡수적Cd칙주요부집재근부,단감봉대Cd적전운능력비빈려약。아세포분포분석발현,량충염생식물각기관중Cd균주요분포우세포벽,기차위포액;세포벽적고정위량자아세포수평상적주요Cd해독궤제,차감봉불동기관세포벽적고정능력비빈려강,근부Cd아세포분포특성대Cd종근부향지상부전운유현저영향。Cd협박제산생직접독해외,야영향감봉화빈려지상부급근부적Na함량,간우료량자불동기관급아세포수평상적정상Na은태。
Tolerance and accumulation of cadmium in halophytic species are important for phytoremediation and food safety of heavy metals contaminated saline soils. A hydroponic experiment was conducted to compare the growth response and the Cd and Na uptake, translocation and subcellular distribution of two halophytic species, Suaeda salsa and Atriplex triangularis, in order to improve the understanding of Cd accumulation and detoxification mechanisms at the subcellular level of these two types of halophytes. Both species showed decrease in root length, plant height and biomass under Cd stress. However, the growth response and Cd toxicity symptoms were quite different between both species, with S. salsa less severely affected by Cd stress than A . triangularis, implying that S. salsa had higher Cd tolerance than A . triangu-laris did. The capacity of Cd adsorption on root surface of two halophytes was also obviously different. Additionally, S. salsa had higher root Cd accumulation but a lower Cd translocation rate than A . triangularis. Cadmium tolerance was associated with the Cd accumulation in the roots and thus low transport to the shoots. The subcellular distribution of Cd was in order of cell wall fraction﹥soluble fraction﹥organelle fraction. The cell wall and soluble fractions were the dominant storage compartments for Cd in the roots, stems and leaves. S. salsa could bind more Cd in the cell wall fractions than A . triangularis . Thus, immobilization of Cd by the cell walls of different organs appeared to be the main Cd detoxification mechanism at the subcellular level. Cadmium stress also influenced the content of Na in shoots and roots of two plants, interfering the normal Na homeostasis at the levels of organs and subcellular fractions.