3.1 Different heavy metal content in the oasis soil of two treatment and CK pots.
From the Table 1, the results shows that five HMs(Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn) concentration(mg per kg in soil) in both T1 and T2 pot were significantly higher than the soil in CK pot. While, the soil CEC was lower in T1 and T2 than it in the CK pot. The pH were almost the same among the CK and T1, T2 pots. The concentration of Cu, Pb, Zn in T1 pot were higher than that in T2 by 55.24%, 162.72%, 169.87% respectively. While, the concentration of Cd and Ni in T2 pot was higher than that in T1 by 62.71% and 261.84%, respectively. When the tailings (T1) and slag (T2) were mixed with local native soil in equal proportions, compared with the farmland soil pollution control standard(GB15618-2018), Cd exceeded 867 (T1) -1120 (T2) times, Ni exceeded 0.6 (T1) -2.17 (T2) times, Cu exceeded 7.35 (T2) -11.41 (T1) times. Zn exceeded 15.12 (T2) -39.71 (T1) times, Pb exceeded 4.41 (T2) -11.91 (T1) times.
Table 1
Heavy metal concentration in original soil(CK) and two treatment pot(T1,T2).
|
cadmium
|
Copper
|
Nickel mg/kg
|
Lead
|
Zinc
|
pH
|
CEC cmol(+)/kg
|
RV
|
0.6
|
100
|
190
|
170
|
300
|
>7.5
|
|
CK
|
5.35
|
26.15
|
27.50
|
18.70
|
58.80
|
8.44
|
9.32
|
T1
|
312.00
|
1141.00
|
114.00
|
2025.00
|
11913.00
|
8.23
|
6.86
|
T2
|
672.00
|
735.00
|
412.50
|
750.35
|
4534.50
|
8.43
|
4.74
|
Notes: CK was the orial soil which sample without plants in Jinchang mining area of rural farmland; T1 was the treatment pot of mining tails mixed with the rural soil; T2 was the treatment pot of slag mixed with the rural soil. The CEC is the electrical conductivity. RV. value was the risk control standard for soil contamination of agriculture land in GB15618-2018. |
3.2 Heavy metal content in the oasis plant
Bio-accumulation factor (BAC), a ratio of heavy metals concentration in the whole plant(including roots, stems, leaves, and grains) to that in the corresponding soil at three treatment(Table 2). Of the five metals, plants tended to have stronger Cu, Zn accumulation, while for others, BACs were all below 1 except only Atriplex canescens (Pursh) for Cd, Ni, Pb. There were six plant species (Suaeda glauca, Bassia scoparia, Kalidium foliatum, Medicago falcata, Atriplex canescens, Artemisia desertorum) for Cu and seven species (Suaeda glauca, Bassia scoparia, Halogeton glomeratus, Kalidium foliatum, Medicago falcata, Atriplex canescens, Artemisia desertorum) for Zn with the BAC greater than 1.
Table 2
Multiple factors(BAC) of plants to the soil for the heavy metal content (mg/kg).
|
Cadmium
|
Nickel
|
Copper
|
Zinc
|
Lead
|
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
Atriplex centralasiatica (IIjin)
|
0.03
|
0.02
|
0.08
|
0.06
|
0.06
|
0.10
|
0.04
|
0.26
|
0.46
|
0.02
|
0.39
|
0.62
|
0.01
|
0.02
|
0.10
|
Suaeda glauca (Bunge)
|
0.01
|
0.25
|
0.08
|
0.03
|
0.48
|
0.14
|
0.02
|
1.59
|
0.26
|
0.01
|
9.37
|
0.31
|
0.00
|
0.50
|
0.07
|
Chenopodium glaucum (L.)
|
0.02
|
0.03
|
0.04
|
0.08
|
0.12
|
0.10
|
0.32
|
0.43
|
0.62
|
0.47
|
0.52
|
0.60
|
0.02
|
0.08
|
0.19
|
Bassia scoparia (L.)
|
0.00
|
0.28
|
0.07
|
0.01
|
0.41
|
0.12
|
0.01
|
0.96
|
1.05
|
0.01
|
1.78
|
1.15
|
0.00
|
0.21
|
0.29
|
Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.)
|
0.01
|
0.11
|
0.02
|
0.02
|
0.19
|
0.05
|
0.02
|
0.98
|
0.20
|
0.01
|
1.10
|
0.32
|
0.00
|
0.20
|
0.04
|
Kalidium foliatum (Pall.)
|
0.13
|
0.02
|
0.17
|
0.04
|
0.32
|
0.52
|
0.06
|
1.27
|
1.83
|
0.14
|
2.31
|
3.48
|
0.02
|
0.21
|
0.20
|
Medicago falcata (L.)
|
0.01
|
0.04
|
0.39
|
0.03
|
0.09
|
0.69
|
0.06
|
1.49
|
0.10
|
0.04
|
2.13
|
0.19
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.32
|
Atriplex canescens (Pursh)
|
0.03
|
1.06
|
0.06
|
0.05
|
1.30
|
0.17
|
0.08
|
2.51
|
0.40
|
0.04
|
6.36
|
0.82
|
0.02
|
1.25
|
0.11
|
Artemisia desertorum (C.B. Clarke)
|
0.26
|
0.33
|
0.36
|
0.44
|
0.51
|
0.50
|
0.33
|
1.33
|
0.93
|
0.48
|
2.48
|
1.67
|
0.22
|
0.33
|
0.32
|
Notes: The data with a BAC value greater than 1 are shown in bold. |
The heavy metal concentrations of the nine plants enriched were presented in Table 3. Cadmium concentration in the plants varied from 1.20 to 50.51 mg/kg, with the maximum value in the Atriplex canescens (Pursh) from T1 treatment.Nickel concentration in the plants varied from 1.56 to 32.49 mg/kg, with the maximum value also in the Atriplex canescens (Pursh) from T1 treatment. Lead concentration in the plants varied from 0.32 to 37.28 mg/kg, with the maximum value still in the Atriplex canescens (Pursh) from T1 treatment.Furthermore, there were great variations of metal concentrations among plant species and pot treatment with Copper from 7.20 to 200.05 mg/kg, Zinc from 8.93 to 467.63 mg/kg, respectively. The Suaeda glauca (Bunge) (Cu-25.07, Zn-178.78 mg/kg), Bassia scoparia (L.) (Cu-31.62, Zn-103.27 mg/kg), Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.)(Cu-39.75, Zn-211.08 mg/kg), Kalidium foliatum (Pall.)(Cu-45.77, Zn-296.85 mg/kg), Medicago falcata (L.)(Cu-88.82, Zn-291.60 mg/kg), and Artemisia desertorum (C.B. Clarke) (Cu-35.67, Zn-256.42 mg/kg) also contained high amounts of Cu and Zn, respectively.
Table 3
Heavy metal concentrations enriched from pot soil of the 9 plants(mg/kg).
|
Cadmium in plants(mg/kg)
|
Nickel in plants(mg/kg)
|
Copper in plants(mg/kg)
|
Zinc in plants(mg/kg)
|
Lead in plants(mg/kg)
|
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
CK
|
T1
|
T2
|
Atriplex centralasiatica (IIjin)
|
1.20
|
4.20
|
10.28
|
1.58
|
5.13
|
9.39
|
10.67
|
13.8
|
19.87
|
12.46
|
25.04
|
29.60
|
0.48
|
6.58
|
3.72
|
Suaeda glauca (Bunge)
|
4.11
|
8.23
|
6.22
|
3.23
|
9.22
|
8.09
|
24.36
|
25.07
|
26.67
|
15.80
|
178.78
|
169.21
|
4.85
|
10.43
|
6.18
|
Chenopodium glaucum (L.)
|
0.97
|
4.59
|
1.87
|
1.56
|
2.31
|
2.06
|
7.20
|
8.30
|
23.61
|
13.23
|
23.8
|
81.59
|
0.32
|
6.62
|
0.86
|
Bassia scoparia (L.)
|
1.56
|
11.25
|
5.44
|
1.64
|
6.25
|
8.93
|
13.35
|
23.92
|
31.62
|
8.93
|
103.27
|
93.54
|
3.73
|
7.01
|
7.74
|
Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.)
|
2.11
|
3.53
|
3.53
|
2.53
|
3.33
|
4.53
|
11.31
|
29.31
|
39.75
|
13.98
|
211.08
|
55.67
|
1.95
|
7.62
|
8.04
|
Kalidium foliatum (Pall.)
|
2.49
|
7.27
|
13.55
|
2.55
|
3.24
|
6.81
|
19.43
|
45.77
|
22.99
|
12.94
|
151.00
|
296.85
|
0.73
|
8.96
|
3.53
|
Medicago falcata (L.)
|
1.43
|
15.28
|
12.54
|
3.72
|
12.05
|
12.63
|
12.88
|
88.82
|
58.40
|
7.98
|
291.60
|
43.60
|
0.79
|
7.94
|
13.08
|
Atriplex canescens (Pursh)
|
1.83
|
50.51
|
20.69
|
5.64
|
32.49
|
17.37
|
16.88
|
200.35
|
95.63
|
15.56
|
467.63
|
75.47
|
5.36
|
37.28
|
14.68
|
Artemisia desertorum (C.B. Clarke)
|
6.41
|
8.83
|
5.24
|
5.44
|
6.24
|
8.05
|
18.75
|
35.67
|
31.62
|
10.27
|
256.42
|
145.80
|
2.74
|
9.22
|
6.64
|
Note: Data in bold represents high amount of metallic elements and high bioconcentration factor. |
3.3 Physiological indices and defense ability in nine species of plants
When the 9 potted plants grew to 2 months old, the results of measured physiological indexes showed that all the other 8 plants except Medicago falcata increased POD activity in response to metal stress(shown in the red module in the figure).Instead of activating the oxidase system, Medicago falcata secretes the extracellular substance glutathione in response to the stress from metals in the soil (Fig. 2a).
When the 9 potted plants grew to 4 months old, SOD activity replaced POD and became the main antioxidant enzyme of the 9 plants in response to metal stress (Fig. 2b). Chenopodium glaucum secretes glutathione in response to metal stress in addition to activating SOD enzyme activity.Kalidium foliatum and Artemisia desertorum increased SOD activity, but also activated CAT and POD oxidase activities.
When the 9 potted plants grew up to 6 months old, compared with more extracellular antioxidant enzyme activities,the 7 plants secrete more exocrine substances such as the total proteins(TPR), used to resist the metal stress (Fig. 2c).
While the Medicago falcata, Chenopodium glaucum were more likely to use the antioxidant enzyme, SOD、POD to resist the metal stress (Fig. 2c).
According to the 6 physiological index parameters of the 9 plants, the difference between the treatment group and the control group was calculated, and the normalized operation was carried out. Finally, the D value of the defense ability of the 9 plants under metal stress was obtained (Table 4). From low to high, they were Medicago falcata (L.), Chenopodium glaucum (L.), Atriplex centralasiatica (IIjin), Halogeton centralasiatica (M. Bieb.), Suaeda glauca (Bunge), Atriplex canescens (Pursh), BassiaScoparia (L.), andKalidium foliatum (Pall.), Artemisia Desertorum (C.B. Clarke).
Table 4. Defense value of the nine plants
|
|
D value
|
Medicago falcata (L.)
|
-2.18
|
Chenopodium glaucum (L.)
|
-0.90
|
Atriplex centralasiatica (IIjin)
|
2.47
|
Halogeton glomeratus (M. Bieb.)
|
3.14
|
Suaeda glauca (Bunge)
|
3.70
|
Atriplex canescens (Pursh)
|
4.46
|
Kalidium foliatum (Pall.)
|
5.21
|
Bassia scoparia (L.)
|
5.24
|
Artemisia desertorum (C.B. Clarke)
|
6.69
|
3.4 Net photosynthesis rate of nine oasis plant
The results showed that under the influence of heavy metals in the soil, the net photosynthetic rate of each psammophyte at the seedling stage decreased significantly (Fig. 2). Central Asian Atriplex decreased by 24.09% (T2 sample). Suaeda salsa decreased by 16.85% (T1 sample) and 69.38% (T2 sample). Ceratoides decreased by 30.74% (T1 sample) and 51.59% (T2 sample). Decreased by 25.04% (T1 sample) and 48.89% (T2 sample). Halophyte decreased by 27.69% (T1 sample) and 72.81% (T2 sample). Salt claw decreased by 23.87% (T1 sample) and 19.64% (T2 sample). Wild alfalfa decreased by 32.93% (T1 sample) and 41.38% (T2 sample). Atriopsis tetraloptera decreased by 12.56% (T1 sample) and 12.43% (T2 sample). Artemisia annua decreased by 30.82% (T1 sample) and 35.63% (T2 sample). The photosynthetic rate of the 9 species decreased by 12.56–32.93% in T1 samples and 12.43–69.38% in T2 samples, with the lowest decreases occurring in Atriopsis tetraptera.
After two months of growth, the plant reached the flowering stage, and the overall photosynthetic rate decreased compared with the seedling stage.However, different from the seedling stage, the photosynthetic rate of plants in the soil samples T1 and T2 containing heavy metals in August was higher than that in the soil samples CK without heavy metals.In general, T1 samples were 22.63–82.83% higher than CK, T2 samples were 11.28-186.27% higher than CK, and T2 was 18.21-390.59% higher than T1.
Similar to the photosynthetic situation of the plants in the flowering stage in August, after 4 months of growth, the photosynthetic rate of the plant samples in the soil affected by heavy metal pollution was still higher than that in the soil samples not affected by heavy metal pollution.In general, T1 samples are − 2.95-152.95% higher than CK on average, T2 samples are − 1.52–129.10% higher than CK on average, and T2 is 1.47–150.60% higher than T1.(The significant level is that, compared with CK, the increase in T1 is %, and that in T2 is %)