Phytoextraction with Maize of Soil Contaminated with Copper after Application of Mineral and Organic Amendments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. Methods of Laboratory and Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Yield and Trace Elements in Maize (Zea Mays L.)
3.2. Bioconcentration Factors
4. Discussion
4.1. The Effect of Copper Soil Contamination on Plants Used or Phytoremediation
4.2. The Effect of Amendments on Plants Cultivated on Soil Contaminated with Copper
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2015: Synthesis Report; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015; p. 205.
- Yu, R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, C.; Yu, Y.; Cui, Z.; Liu, J. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in soils and maize (Zea mays L.) from Yushu, northeast China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2017, 23, 1493–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Ilahi, I. Environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of hazardous heavy metals: Environmental persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. J. Chem. 2019, 2019, 6730305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alloway, B.J. Sources of heavy metals and metalloids in soils. In Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and Their Bioavailability; Environmental Pollution, 22; Alloway, B.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 11–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Kucharski, M.; Kucharski, J. Effect of cadmium, copper and zinc on plants, soil microorganisms and soil enzymes. J. Elem. 2013, 18, 769–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aladesanmi, O.T.; Oroboade, J.G.; Osisiogu, C.P.; Osewole, A.O. Bioaccumulation factor of selected heavy metals in Zea mays. J. Health Pollut. 2019, 9, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barakat, M.A. New trends in removing heavy metals from industrial wastewater. Arab. J. Chem. 2011, 4, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; p. 403. Available online: http://base.dnsgb.com.ua/files/book/Agriculture/Soil/Trace-Elements-in-Soils-and-Plants.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
- Khan, T.; Muhammad, S.; Khan, B.; Khan, H. Investigating the levels of selected heavy metals in surface water of Shah Alam River (a tributary of River Kabul, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). J. Himal. Earth Sci. 2011, 44, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
- Asgari, K.; Cornelis, W.M. Heavy metal accumulation in soils and grains, and health risks associated with use of treated municipal wastewater in subsurface drip irrigation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, K.N.; Yet, Z.R.; Som, A.; Razali, N.; Rohaizah, N.A.; Othman, E.N.; Burok, N.A.; Yunos, Y.; Othman, R.; Yahya, T.F. The heavy metal concentration (Pb, Cu, Fe, Zn, Ni) in plant parts of Zea mays L. cultivated in agricultural area near Alor Gajah, Melaka, Malaysia. Am. J. Environ. Eng. 2015, 5, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urunmatsoma, S.O.P.; Ikhuoria, E.U.; Okieimen, F.E. Chemical fractionation and heavy metal accumulation in maize (Zea mays) grown on chromated copper arsenate (CCA) contaminated soil amended with cow dung manure. Int. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Res. 2010, 1, 65–73. [Google Scholar]
- Wuana, R.A.; Okieimen, F.E. Heavy metals in contaminated soils: A review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. Inter. Sch. Res. Not. Ecol. 2011, 2011, 402647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McBride, M.B.; Martínez, C.E. Copper phytotoxicity in a contaminated soil: Remediation tests with adsorptive materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 4386–4391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burzyński, M.; Kłobus, G. Changes of photosynthetic parameters in cucumber leaves under Cu, Cd, and Pb stress. Photosynthetica 2004, 424, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appenroth, K.-J. What are “heavy metals” in Plant Sciences? Acta Physiol. Plant. 2010, 32, 615–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.E.; Ahmad, M.; Lee, S.S.; Shope, C.L.; Hashimoto, Y.; Kim, K.-R.; Usman, A.R.A.; Yang, J.E.; Ok, Y.S. Effects of lime-based waste materials on immobilization and phytoavailability of cadmium and lead in contaminated soil. Clean Soil Air Water 2013, 41, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, D.H.; Park, J.W.; Chang, Y.Y.; Ok, Y.S.; Lee, S.S.; Ahmad, M. Immobilization of lead in contaminated firing range soil using biochar. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 8464–8471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ling, W.; Shen, Q.; Gao, Y.; Gu, X.; Yang, Z. Use of bentonite to control the release of copper from contaminated soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2007, 45, 618–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, M.; Perkins, W.T.; Hobbs, P.J.; Griffith, G.W.; Jones, D.L. Migration of heavy metals in soil as influenced by compost amendments. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korzeniowska, J.; Stanisławska-Glubiak, E.; Igras, J. Applicability of energy crops for metal phytostabilization of soils moderately contaminated with copper, nickel and zinc. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2011, 9, 693–697. [Google Scholar]
- Murakami, M.; Ae, N. Potential for phytoextraction of copper, lead, and zinc by rice (Oryza sativa L.), soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.), and maize (Zea mays L.). J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 162, 1185–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kacálková, L.; Tlustoš, P.; Száková, J. Phytoextraction of cadmium, copper, zinc and mercury by selected plants. Plant Soil Environ. 2009, 55, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kucharski, R.; Sas-Nowosielska, A.; Małkowski, E.; Japenga, J.; Kuperberg, J.M.; Pogrzeba, M.; Krzyżak, J. The use of indigenous plant species and calcium phosphate for the stabilization of highly metal-polluted sites in southern Poland. Plant Soil 2005, 273, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azubuike, C.C.; Chikere, C.B.; Okpokwasili, G.C. Bioremediation techniques-classification based on site of application: Principles, advantages, limitations and prospects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 32, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tak, H.I.; Ahmad, F.; Babalola, O.O. Advances in the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in phytoremediation of heavy metals. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Whitacre, D.M., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; Volume 223, pp. 33–52. [Google Scholar]
- Kumpiene, J.; Lagerkvist, A.; Maurice, C. Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments—A review. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usman, A.R.A.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Lorenz, K.; Stahr, K. Remediation of a soil contaminated with heavy metals by immobilizing compounds. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2006, 169, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abuzaid, A.S.; Bassouny, M.A.; Jahin, H.S.; Abdelhafez, A.A. Stabilization of Lead and Copper in a Contaminated Typic Torripsament Soil Using Humic Substances. Clean Soil Air Water 2019, 47, 1800309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyszkowski, M. Effect of contamination with copper and mineral or organic amendments on the content of trace elements in soil. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2017, 43, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US-EPA Method 3051A. Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Sediment, Sludges, Soils, and Oils; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. 30. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/3051a.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2020).
- Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Sajad, M.A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals-concepts and applications. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 869–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dell Inc. Dell Statistica (Data Analysis Software System), Version 13. 2016. Available online: http://software.dell.com (accessed on 26 August 2020).
- Tiecher, T.L.; Ceretta, C.A.; Ferreira, P.A.A.; Lourenzi, C.R.; Tiecher, T.; Girotto, E.; Nicoloso, F.T.; Soriani, H.H.; De Conti, L.; Mimmo, T.; et al. The potential of Zea mays L. in remediating copper and zinc contaminated soils for grapevine production. Geoderma 2016, 262, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, S.; Chen, Y.J.; Xu, F.L.; Cao, J.B.; Li, G. Changes of copper speciation in maize rhizosphere soil. Environ. Pollut. 2003, 122, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wu, W.; Liu, F.; Liao, R.; Hu, Y. Accumulation of heavy metals in soil-crop systems: A review for wheat and corn. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 15209–15225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, C.E.; Motto, H.L. Solubility of lead, zinc and copper added to mineral soils. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 107, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oorts, K.C. Heavy Metals in Soils: Trace Metals and Metalloids in Soils and Their Bioavailability; Environmental Pollution, 22; Alloway, B.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 367–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.H.; Lamb, D.; Paneerselvam, P.; Choppala, G.; Bolan, N.; Chung, J.-W. Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal(loid) contaminated soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 549–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wyszkowski, M. Soil contamination with copper and its effect on selected soil properties after application neutralising substances. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 2465–2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janoš, P.; Vávrová, J.; Herzogová, L.; Pilařová, V. Effects of inorganic and organic amendments on the mobility (leachability) of heavy metals in contaminated soil: A sequential extraction study. Geoderma 2010, 159, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żołnowski, A.; Busse, M.; Zając, P. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to soil contamination with copper depending on applied contamination neutralizing substances. J. Elem. 2013, 18, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, E.J.; Cánovas, M.; Gálvez, M.E.; Montofré, Í.L.; Keith, B.F.; Faz, Á. Evaluation of the phytoremediation potential of native plants growing on a copper mine tailing in northern Chile. J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 182, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigua, G.C.; Novak, J.M.; Watts, D.W.; Ippolito, J.A.; Ducey, T.F.; Johnson, M.G.; Spokas, K.A. Phytostabilization of Zn and Cd in mine soil using corn in combination with biochars and manure-based compost. Environments 2019, 6, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wyszkowski, M.; Sivitskaya, V. Changes in the content of some micronutrients in soil contaminated with heating oil after the application of different substances. J. Elem. 2014, 19, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabir, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Hakeem, K.R.; Saifullah. Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soils Using Organic Amendments: Prospects and Challenges. In Soil Remediation and Plants; Hakeem, K.R., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 503–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolan, N.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; Thangarajan, R.; Kumpiene, J.; Park, J.; Makino, T.; Kirkham, M.B.; Scheckel, K. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils—To mobilize or to immobilize? J. Hazard. Mat. 2014, 266, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, L.R.; White, P.M.; Pierzynski, G.M. Changes in microbial properties aftermanure, lime, and bentonite application to a heavy metal-contaminated minewaste. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 48, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Soil |
---|---|
Granulometric composition | Sand |
Sand > 0.05 mm (%) | 86 |
Silt 0.002–0.05 mm (%) | 12 |
Clay < 0.002 mm (%) | 2 |
pH value in 1 M KCl/dm3 | 5.53 |
Hydrolytic acidity—HAC (mM (+)/kg DM) | 27.5 |
Total exchangeable bases—TEB (mM(+)/kg DM) | 151.1 |
Cation exchange capacity—CEC (mM(+)/kg DM) | 178.6 |
Base saturation—BS (%) | 84.6 |
Total organic carbon—TOC (g/kg DM) | 9.86 |
Total nitrogen (g/kg DM) | 0.71 |
Available phosphorus (mg P/kg DM) | 86.48 |
Available potassium (mg K/kg DM) | 108.46 |
Available magnesium (mg Mg/kg DM) | 85.32 |
Copper (mg Cu/kg DM) | 4.24 |
Zinc (mg Zn/kg DM) | 15.70 |
Nickel (mg Ni/kg DM) | 5.84 |
Manganese (mg Mn/kg DM) | 212.3 |
Iron (mg Fe/kg DM) | 6954.2 |
Cobalt (mg Co/kg DM) | 7.81 |
Parameter | Compost | Bentonite | Zeolite |
---|---|---|---|
Total organic carbon—TOC (g/kg DM) | 204.2 | - | - |
Total nitrogen (g/kg DM) | 11.97 | - | - |
Phosphorus (g P/kg DM) | 2.39 | 0.52 | 0.12 |
Potassium (g K/kg DM) | 1.41 | 2.36 | 23.13 |
Magnesium (mg Mg/kg DM) | 1.52 | 5.04 | 0.37 |
Copper (mg Cu/kg DM) | 0.81 | 21.3 | 12.38 |
Zinc (mg Zn/kg DM) | 4.29 | 11.8 | 14.68 |
Nickel (mg Ni/kg DM) | 0.51 | 2.32 | 409 |
Manganese (mg Mn/kg DM) | 5.32 | 145 | 2.04 |
Iron (mg Fe/kg DM) | 208 | 4260 | 4920 |
Cobalt (mg Co/kg DM) | 0.51 | 1.43 | 0.31 |
Copper Dose in mg/kg of Soil | Without Amendments | Compost | Bentonite | Zeolite | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield of shoots, in g DM/pot | |||||
0 | 80.87 ± 1.54 | 77.15 ± 1.62 | 85.60 ± 1.76 | 70.19 ± 1.46 | 78.45 |
50 | 88.53 ± 1.77 | 78.18 ± 1.56 | 106.96 ± 2.16 | 102.75 ± 1.99 | 94.11 |
100 | 89.97 ± 1.77 | 100.32 ± 2.01 | 97.46 ± 2.01 | 95.12 ± 1.90 | 95.72 |
150 | 83.39 ± 1.53 | 78.74 ± 1.77 | 96.59 ± 1.95 | 91.98 ± 1.79 | 87.68 |
200 | 42.17 ± 0.99 | 77.54 ± 1.58 | 97.80 ± 1.86 | 38.11 ± 1.02 | 63.91 |
Average | 76.99 | 82.39 | 96.88 | 79.63 | 83.97 |
r | −0.659 * | 0.021 | 0.292 | −0.453 | −0.428 |
LSD for: | Cu dose—0.92 **, amendments application—1.02 **, interaction—2.05 ** | ||||
Copper (Cu), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 1.01 ± 0.02 | 1.78 ± 0.04 | 2.14 ± 0.04 | 1.38 ± 0.03 | 1.58 |
50 | 4.51 ± 0.09 | 2.76 ± 0.06 | 3.92 ± 0.08 | 3.59 ± 0.07 | 3.70 |
100 | 8.57 ± 0.17 | 7.40 ± 0.15 | 7.95 ± 0.16 | 7.00 ± 0.14 | 7.73 |
150 | 14.15 ± 0.28 | 10.40 ± 0.21 | 10.43 ± 0.21 | 11.10 ± 0.22 | 11.52 |
200 | 26.88 ± 0.54 | 17.07 ± 0.34 | 19.33 ± 0.39 | 14.75 ± 0.30 | 19.51 |
Average | 11.02 | 7.88 | 8.75 | 7.56 | 8.81 |
r | 0.959 ** | 0.972 ** | 0.957 ** | 0.995 ** | 0.973 ** |
LSD for: | Cu dose—0.57 **, amendments application—0.63 **, interaction—0.27 ** | ||||
Zinc (Zn), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 25.54 ± 0.51 | 21.99 ± 0.38 | 24.82 ± 0.48 | 22.59 ± 0.34 | 23.74 |
50 | 25.31 ± 0.48 | 23.75 ± 0.48 | 20.76 ± 0.40 | 24.34 ± 0.47 | 23.54 |
100 | 28.53 ± 0.57 | 25.54 ± 0.56 | 22.81 ± 0.49 | 24.57 ± 0.55 | 25.36 |
150 | 28.43 ± 0.49 | 26.18 ± 0.55 | 21.69 ± 0.36 | 25.51 ± 0.49 | 25.45 |
200 | 28.03 ± 0.56 | 24.49 ± 0.49 | 26.58 ± 0.53 | 25.64 ± 0.38 | 26.19 |
Average | 27.17 | 24.39 | 23.33 | 24.53 | 24.86 |
r | 0.798 ** | 0.718 ** | 0.298 | 0.939 ** | 0.930 ** |
LSD for: | Cu dose—n.s., amendments application—2.45 *, interaction—n.s. | ||||
Nickel (Ni), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 0.66 ± 0.01 | 3.80 ± 0.08 | 5.20 ± 0.06 | 5.50 ± 0.07 | 3.79 |
50 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | 4.40 ± 0.09 | 7.15 ± 0.12 | 6.40 ± 0.09 | 4.54 |
100 | 1.70 ± 0.03 | 5.20 ± 0.05 | 6.65 ± 0.01 | 7.45 ± 0.11 | 5.25 |
150 | 1.45 ± 0.02 | 6.30 ± 0.11 | 6.15 ± 0.09 | 7.40 ± 0.05 | 5.33 |
200 | 0.95 ± 0.02 | 6.40 ± 0.08 | 7.35 ± 0.13 | 7.55 ± 0.12 | 5.56 |
Average | 0.99 | 5.22 | 6.50 | 6.86 | 4.89 |
r | 0.483 | 0.980 ** | 0.605 * | 0.905 ** | 0.944 ** |
LSD for: | Cu dose—0.84 **, amendments application—0.75 **, interaction—n.s. |
Copper Dose in mg/kg of Soil | Without Amendments | Compost | Bentonite | Zeolite | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manganese (Mn), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 237.2 ± 4.2 | 236.2 ± 4.7 | 144.2 ± 2.2 | 168.2 ± 1.8 | 196.5 |
50 | 339.9 ± 5.4 | 269.5 ± 5.2 | 152.3 ± 2.8 | 203.3 ± 2.6 | 241.3 |
100 | 347.3 ± 3.5 | 294.0 ± 5.9 | 170.2 ± 3.4 | 261.8 ± 5.2 | 268.3 |
150 | 350.9 ± 7.0 | 278.8 ± 4.4 | 179.5 ± 3.6 | 252.9 ± 4.5 | 265.5 |
200 | 354.6 ± 6.1 | 277.5 ± 5.1 | 160.5 ± 0.7 | 339.3 ± 6.4 | 283.0 |
Average | 326.0 | 271.2 | 161.3 | 245.1 | 250.9 |
r | 0.778 ** | 0.677 ** | 0.675 ** | 0.815 ** | 0.920 ** |
LSD for: | Cu dose—12.1 **, amendments application—10.9 **, interaction—24.3 ** | ||||
Iron (Fe), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 71.20 ± 0.71 | 86.40 ± 1.32 | 65.50 ± 1.31 | 83.40 ± 1.29 | 76.63 |
50 | 74.75 ± 1.50 | 60.10 ± 1.20 | 66.00 ± 1.35 | 69.00 ± 1.00 | 67.46 |
100 | 88.80 ± 1.61 | 63.50 ± 1.27 | 63.40 ± 1.22 | 49.85 ± 1.09 | 66.39 |
150 | 90.80 ± 1.33 | 63.00 ± 1.11 | 65.00 ± 1.30 | 59.10 ± 1.25 | 69.48 |
200 | 92.30 ± 1.73 | 46.90±0.85 | 70.20 ± 1.38 | 63.65 ± 1.27 | 68.26 |
Average | 83.57 | 63.98 | 66.02 | 65.00 | 69.64 |
r | 0.937 ** | −0.845 ** | 0.525 * | 0.981 ** | −0.573 * |
LSD for: | Cu dose—5.54 **, amendments application—4.95 **, interaction—11.08 ** | ||||
Cobalt (Co), in mg/kg DM | |||||
0 | 0.253 ± 0.004 | 0.414 ± 0.004 | 0.109 ± 0.002 | 0.033 ± 0.001 | 0.202 |
50 | 0.438 ± 0.007 | 0.370 ± 0.007 | 0.074 ± 0.001 | 0.063 ± 0.001 | 0.236 |
100 | 0.426 ± 0.009 | 0.302 ± 0.005 | 0.053 ± 0.004 | 0.056 ± 0.001 | 0.209 |
150 | 0.441 ± 0.008 | 0.267 ± 0.002 | 0.045 ± 0.000 | 0.115 ± 0.002 | 0.217 |
200 | 0.442 ± 0.009 | 0.297 ± 0.005 | 0.044 ± 0.001 | 0.119 ± 0.002 | 0.226 |
Average | 0.400 | 0.330 | 0.065 | 0.077 | 0.218 |
r | 0.731 ** | −0.885 ** | −0.918 ** | 0.893 ** | 0.322 |
LSD for: | Cu dose—0.033 *, amendments application—0.030 **, interaction—0.068 ** |
Factor | Yield of DW Shoots | Concentration of Trace Elements in Maize | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cu | Zn | Ni | Mn | Fe | Co | ||
Maize | |||||||
Shoot DW yield | −0.423 ** | −0.214 | 0.237 | −0.495 ** | −0.275 | −0.318 * | |
Cu | −0.423 ** | 0.353 * | 0.020 | 0.402 * | 0.086 | 0.163 | |
Zn | −0.214 | 0.353 * | −0.348 * | 0.484 ** | 0.342 | 0.321 | |
Ni | 0.237 | 0.020 | −0.348 * | −0.528 ** | −0.631 ** | −0.755 ** | |
Mn | −0.495 ** | 0.402 * | 0.484 ** | −0.528 ** | 0.274 | 0.750 ** | |
Fe | −0.275 | 0.086 | 0.342 * | −0.631 ** | 0.274 | 0.462 ** | |
Co | −0.318 * | 0.163 | 0.321 * | −0.755 ** | 0.750 ** | 0.462 ** | |
Soil | |||||||
pHKCl | 0.362 * | −0.366 * | 0.074 | −0.076 | 0.015 | −0.262 | −0.163 |
HAC | −0.767 ** | 0.678 ** | 0.273 | −0.278 | 0.512 ** | 0.410 ** | 0.421 ** |
TEB | −0.180 | 0.042 | −0.255 | 0.253 | −0.272 | −0.232 | −0.329 * |
CEC | −0.343 * | 0.190 | −0.186 | 0.183 | −0.149 | −0.134 | −0.225 |
BS | 0.483 ** | −0.480 ** | −0.372 * | 0.370 * | −0.568 ** | −0.476 ** | −0.545 ** |
Cu | −0.361 * | 0.958 ** | 0.486 ** | −0.028 | 0.454 ** | 0.161 | 0.212 |
Zn | 0.182 | −0.105 | 0.012 | −0.222 | 0.267 | 0.076 | 0.299 |
Ni | −0.109 | 0.112 | −0.017 | 0.460 ** | −0.182 | −0.231 | −0.584 ** |
Mn | 0.422 ** | −0.317 * | 0.116 | −0.604 ** | 0.026 | 0.452 ** | 0.500 ** |
Fe | 0.510 ** | −0.335 * | −0.192 | −0.351 * | −0.334 * | 0.234 | 0.237 |
Co | 0.285 | −0.166 | −0.082 | 0.172 | −0.378 * | −0.197 | −0.623 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wyszkowski, M.; Brodowska, M.S. Phytoextraction with Maize of Soil Contaminated with Copper after Application of Mineral and Organic Amendments. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101597
Wyszkowski M, Brodowska MS. Phytoextraction with Maize of Soil Contaminated with Copper after Application of Mineral and Organic Amendments. Agronomy. 2020; 10(10):1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101597
Chicago/Turabian StyleWyszkowski, Mirosław, and Marzena S. Brodowska. 2020. "Phytoextraction with Maize of Soil Contaminated with Copper after Application of Mineral and Organic Amendments" Agronomy 10, no. 10: 1597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101597