You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Plants
  • Review
  • Open Access

28 September 2022

The Anatomical Basis of Heavy Metal Responses in Legumes and Their Impact on Plant–Rhizosphere Interactions

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
College of Life Sciences, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, 21121 Novi Sad, Serbia
3
Key Laboratory of Specialty Agri-Product Quality and Hazard Controlling Technology of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310018, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Functional Plant Anatomy – Structure, Function and Environment

Abstract

Rapid industrialization, urbanization, and mine tailings runoff are the main sources of heavy metal contamination of agricultural land, which has become one of the major constraints to crop growth and productivity. Finding appropriate solutions to protect plants and agricultural land from heavy metal pollution/harmful effects is important for sustainable development. Phytoremediation and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are promising methods for this purpose, which both heavily rely on an appropriate understanding of the anatomical structure of plants. Specialized anatomical features, such as those of epidermis and endodermis and changes in the root vascular tissue, are often associated with heavy metal tolerance in legumes. This review emphasizes the uptake and transport of heavy metals by legume plants that can be used to enhance soil detoxification by phytoremediation processes. Moreover, the review also focuses on the role of rhizospheric organisms in the facilitation of heavy metal uptake, the various mechanisms of enhancing the availability of heavy metals in the rhizosphere, the genetic diversity, and the microbial genera involved in these processes. The information presented here can be exploited for improving the growth and productivity of legume plants in metal-prone soils.

1. Introduction

Plants, as sessile organisms, are exposed to various challenging environmental conditions throughout their lifecycle that adversely affect their growth and developmental processes [1,2]. Heavy metal toxicity reduces plant growth/productivity and causes severe health hazards in humans. Various metals and metalloids, such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), and chromium (Cr), induce severe toxicity when they enter into the soil agro-ecosystem either through natural processes or by anthropogenic activities [3,4]. Natural sources of heavy metals (HM) contamination include weathering of rocks, soil erosion, burning of forests, and volcanic eruptions, whereas anthropogenic sources involve extensive mining, metal smelting, application of chemical fertilizers, industrial/sewage discharge, and coal combustion [5,6]. Rapid industrialization and technological advancements have altered the normal geochemical cycle of metals/elements, which in turn have accelerated their increment in soil horizons [7,8]. Increased bioaccumulation of heavy metals beyond the threshold level has shown a negative impact on the natural food chain and microbial flora and is therefore now being perceived as an imminent threat to the ecosystem and environment [6,9].
In plants, heavy metals are absorbed by the roots and transported to shoots, causing significant damage to root and shoot cells, and internal organelles, such as chloroplast and mitochondria, thus reducing energy production and imposing oxidative stress, and ultimately affecting plant morphology and survival rate [10,11]. While many plants are sensitive to heavy metals, some species are tolerant to them or are even hyper-accumulators [12]. Phytoremediation is a branch of bioremediation that uses plants for the removal of pollutants from contaminated soils [13,14]. It is effective for contaminated sites with pollutants that are distributed within the root zone of the plants [11]. The rhizosphere bacteria that inhabit the root zone of the plants play an important role in the phytoremediation process, via various mechanisms. Most of the physical and chemical activities taking place in the rhizosphere have a direct impact on the root system. It is well understood that plant–microbe interaction determines the efficiency of metal extraction. Whiting et al. [15] showed that Thlaspi caerulescens plants inoculated with rhizosphere bacteria accumulated high amounts of Zn. Different mechanisms, such as exopolysaccharide (EPS) production, rhizosphere acidification through organic acids, siderophore production, indole-3-acetic (IAA), or 1-amino1-cyclopropanoic acid (ACC) deaminase production, and the release of growth-limiting nutrients from the soil are involved in improving the rate of heavy metal accumulation in plants [11].
Family Fabaceae comprises more than 19,000 species, including many agriculturally important crops, such as soybean, pea, and common bean, which are essential for global food security [16]. Besides staple legume crops, underutilized legumes, such as cowpea and rice bean, have significantly contributed towards the dietary requirements of the rural areas, particularly under adverse environmental conditions, such as drought and famine situations [17,18]. These crops are the life-savers for millions of people where assuring food and nutritional security is one of the major challenges, particularly in ancestral subsistence farming activities [19]. Although many legume cultivation areas are facing HM contaminations, to date limited information is available regarding the responsive and adaptive mechanisms in legume crops to heavy metal exposures in comparison to other major crops. Therefore, the present review is an attempt to evaluate the recent discoveries and breakthroughs in deciphering various mechanisms/strategies that are used by legume plants to respond to heavy metal stress. Specifically, this review highlights the anatomical basis associated with heavy metal uptake and translocation, which is rare among the abundant literature, as well as the involvement of the symbiotic rhizosphere microbes, a characteristic of legume plants, in this process. This collective information will be valuable for guiding the improvement of the growth and productivity of legume plants under metal-prone soils.

2. The Adverse Impacts of Heavy Metals on Legumes

Heavy metals at low concentrations can play a stimulative role in plants’ growth and development [5,20]; however, when their levels reach beyond a certain threshold, they act as an imminent threat to plants [21]. The general effects of various metals in a plant are given in Table 1. One of the most important effects of Cd stress on legume plants is growth inhibition. Root and shoot dry weight and length were significantly reduced in Glycine max (L.) under Cd stress [22], which is usually a consequence of reduced photosynthetic rate and disturbance in uptake and distribution of macro-and micro-nutrients. Cd stress also significantly decreased growth and yield parameters of soybean plants, e.g., plant height, number of branches and leaves, total leaf area, shoot dry weight, number of pods and seeds/plant, seed yield, and weight. All these parameters were negatively correlated with Cd concentration in the soil [23]. In runner bean (Phaseouls coccineus L.), Cd-induced a reduction of seedling leaf area to 39%, whilst Cd applied in later growth stages showed a smoother effect [24]. Seed germination of Phaseolus vulgaris was lowered by 68–98%, depending on the applied Cd concentration [25]. Zornoza et al. [26] found the reduction of shoot and root dry weight in white lupin treated with Cd by 38% and 15%, respectively, which was owing to the reduced internodal length, plant height, and lateral root development. Growth reduction by Cd is largely attributed to disturbed water and mineral nutrients uptake, which is often associated with decreased shoot water content [27]. Growth reduction in Cd and Pb treated Trigonella foenum graecum L. resulted in smaller vegetative organs, lower dry weight, smaller leaf area, and number of leaves and branches [28]. High concentrations of Fe reduced root and shoot biomass in peanut [29]. It is also reported that Al caused a reduction in alfalfa root length, weight, and activity. Number of leaves, total leaf area, and leaf dry mass declined significantly in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants under Zn treatment [30]. Macroscopic alterations induced by As in soybean included a decreased number of lateral roots, abnormal thickening and darkening of root, necrotic, and slimy main root apex [31]. The roots of Vicia villosa treated with As showed a decrease in root length, which resulted in lower uptake and transport of water and nutrients, and consequently decreased growth of aerial plant parts [32]. In addition to length reduction, root color of treated Vicia villosa plants were brownish and darker. Root growth reduction, which was particularly prominent in lateral roots, as well as abnormal development of the root cap, occurred in Cajanus cajani plants treated with As [33].
Table 1. Functions and effects of heavy metals on plant growth and their concentrations in edible parts (mg/kg, f.w.) of legume (Pea) grown in non-polluted and polluted soils.
On the other hand, some legumes particularly soybean, common bean, and hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus (L.) are most commonly used for phytoextraction/phytostabilization mainly due to their ability to colonize metal-enriched soils to restore their fertility thereby stimulating crop growth and productivity [34]. The Indian bean, sometimes known as the hyacinth bean, has also been reported to be tolerant to a number of heavy metals, including Cd, Hg, Pb, Zn, P, and Cr [35,36]. Thanks to the early availability of whole-genome sequence and well-established genetics, Medicago has been thoroughly investigated for its phytoremediation [37]. It is reported that Medicago sativa with Sinorhizobium (syn. Ensifer) meliloti and Sinorhizobium medica enhanced nodulation efficiency in Medicago plants, resulting in increased metal bioaccumulation through root nodules, which promotes land restoration and phytostabilization [37,38]. Likewise, several other studies reported that by using Lens culinaris, Lupinus luteus, Sulla coronaria, Vicia faba, and Lablab purpureus with Pseudomonas sp. Az13, Bradyrhizobium sp. 750 and Ochrobactrum cytisi Azn6.2 significantly improved plant grfowth and yield, even though they accumulated more heavy metals than non-inoculated plants [39,40]. Indeed, the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in food crops and their effects on human health are of great concern worldwide. The concentration of heavy metals in the fruit of Pisum sativum L. (garden pea) grown in contaminated soils in comparison to non-polluted soils, and their adverse effects on plants are mentioned in Table 1. Nevertheless, more collective efforts are necessary to enhance legume-based phytoremediation by reprogramming the host–plant symbiotic relationship through biotechnological interventions to increase metal tolerance and phytoremediation ability in plants.

4. Impacts of Legume–Rhizosphere Microbe Interaction on HM and Phytoremediation

Plants that survive heavy metal stress conditions must adapt/acclimate to evade the severe effects of metal induce toxicity through physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms. Phytoremediation is a sustainable approach to degrading, removing, or immobilizing heavy metals in soil–food crop subsystems through various processes such as degradation (phytodegradation, rhizo-degradation), accumulation (rhizofiltration, phytoextraction), dissipation (phytovolatilization) and immobilization (phytostabilization). Natural nitrogen-fixing plants, the plant-symbiotic microbe interactions are of particular interest in legumes [8]. Microbe-mediated phytoremediation is seen as a potential method of treating heterogeneous pollutants. Studies have reported that the microbes, including bacteria and fungi, play a beneficial role in growth promotion, stress reduction, and degradation [79]. In this section, we outline some recent research advancements in the role of rhizosphere microbe in plant responses to heavy metals and its assisted phytoremediation, which will help more comprehensively understand the mechanism of heavy metal stress tolerance in legume plants and the potential use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (Figure 1).

4.1. Role of Rhizospheric Microbes in Plant Responses to HM

Microbes induce various innate plant growth stimulating traits, such as phytohormone synthesis, siderophores, and chelating compounds, and thus play an intermediary role in bioremediation and microbe-mediated removal of various pollutants [79]. Many symbiotic rhizobial strains showing resistance to heavy metals, such as Zn, Pb, and Cu, have been found in legumes growing in polluted regions, such as mine deposits and serpentine soils. These microbes mobilize the pollutants in the rhizosphere region of plants, which are then taken up by plants. They also help plants to resist various environmental stresses. Plants, in turn, release the exudates and enzymes that stimulate biochemical and microbial activities in the adjoining soil, thus supporting bioremediation. Micro-organisms can secrete compounds beneficial for plant growth and thus can promote plant survival in HMs contaminated soils [79]. Responses to HMs are also influenced by hormonal crosstalk between plants and bacteria. It has been suggested that sulphur-amino acid-decomposing bacteria within the rhizosphere of Helianthus tuberosus and Armoracia lapathifolia growing in Hg-contaminated soil immobilize Hg within soil as HgS, employing sulphur release. Thus, bioavailability of Hg, and consequently root uptake, are reduced [79,80]. Hg immobilization in soil protects plants against toxic concentrations of Hg, allowing revegetation of Hg-contaminated areas. Hence, to achieve removal of the contaminant via plant uptake, Hg-mobilizing bacterial mechanisms have been considered in the context of assisted Hg phytoextraction [80].
Several studies have shown that rhizobacteria can reduce the stress effect of HMs and influence various phytohormones [80] reported that the association of rhizosphere bacteria with HMs hyper-accumulating plants (Sedum alfredii) increased metal mobilization by increasing the production of the five (acetic, formic, oxalic, tartaric, and succinic acids) important organic acids. Heavy metal bioavailability can be reduced by sulfate-reducing bacteria (Desulfovibrio desulfuricans) by producing insoluble metal sulfide compounds. Metal sulfates have a low solubility, which can cause metal precipitation from soil solutions and reduce metal uptake by plants. The chemical reduction of metals during the processes of sulfate reduction by bacteria leverages protons and enhances the pH of the environment, further reducing metal solubility [81]. Rhizosphere bacteria can excrete organic molecules that chelate Cd2+, making it less available to the plants. Gupta and Diwan [82] reported that Pseudomonas putida, which secretes extracellular polymeric substances containing carboxyl and phosphate groups to bind Cd2+, reduced the bioavailability of Cd to the plant root and bacteria. In Glycine max, the co-inoculation of endophytic bacteria with fungi significantly reduced the stress effect of Al and Zn [83]. Bianucci et al. [84] reported that the soybean inoculation with Bradyrhizobium sp. Per 3.61 significantly reduced As toxicity by lowering its translocation and accumulation in edible parts.
It is also reported that nitrogen fixation enhanced plant growth in HMs-contaminated soils. Nitrogen fixation in root nodulation in legume stimulate plant development by increasing phytostabilization of HMs (Cd, Cu, Pb) that reduce metal translocation to aerial parts [85]. Arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi (AMF) were also reported to form a symbiotic relationship with plants, improving nutrient assimilation and stimulating development and growth in heavy metal contaminated soil by increasing access to nutrients, such as P and K. Furthermore, they contribute to the conservation of appropriate soil texture by preventing soil leaching and absorbing heavy metals in their shoots, roots, and leaves and converting them to a non-toxic form [18,86]. Moreover, AMF enhances the host to retain harmful metals in the roots of mycorrhizal plants and restricts transfer to the upper part of the plant [87,88]. The symbiotic relationship between alfalfa and AMF reduces the toxic effect of Cd by reducing the translocation and accumulation in the aerial part of plants [89]. Furthermore, in Medicago truncatula seedlings under Cu stress, the legume-rhizobium symbiosis regulated gene expression involved in antioxidant responses, phytochelatin (PC) biosynthesis and metallothionein biosynthesis [90].

4.2. Rhizosphere Microbe-Assisted Phytoremediation

Studies have indicated that legumes are potentially able to perform phytoremediation and simultaneously boost the nitrogen economy by forming a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium thereby improving soil fertility and crop productivity [19,91,92]. Arsenic toxicity in soybean alleviated by a symbiotic species of Bradyrhizobium by reducing translocation and accumulation to edible parts of the soybean, avoiding fruit contamination and human poisoning [84] whereas Sinorhizobium meliloti increased plant growth and copper tolerance in Medicago lupulina [93]. The cool-season model legume Medicago has also been analyzed for its phytoremediation ability mainly because of its well-established genetics [37]. Several studies have demonstrated that using Sinorhizobium (syn. Ensifer) meliloti and Sinorhizobium medica significantly improved nodulation efficiency in Medicago plants, which resulted in increased metal bioaccumulation via root nodules thus promoting land restoration and phytostabilization [37,38]. Similarly, Vicia faba, Lupinus luteus, Lens culinaris, Sulla coronaria, and recently, Lablab purpureus cultivated with consortia of Bradyrhizobium sp. 750, Pseudomonas sp. Az13, and Ochrobactrum cytisi Azn6.2 had significantly improved plant growth and productivity while also more accumulated heavy metals compared to non-inoculated controls [39,40]. Furthermore, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), such as Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Pseudomonas spp., Kocuria, and Microbacterium, are shown to play a key role in dissolving various metals for enhanced sequestration in metalliferous soil where metals are tightly bound to the soil through protons and other organic anions by acting as bio surfactants [94]. In iron-deficient environments, PGPR can induce the production of siderophores, which serve as iron chelators, promoting iron availability to both soil micro-organisms and plants. Inoculation of alfalfa (M. sativa) with a microbial community containing Proteus sp. DSP1, Pseudomonas sp. DSP17, Ensifer meliloti RhOL6 and RhOL8 strains enhanced seed germination and early plant growth, and attenuated heavy metal stress by lowering antioxidant enzymes and heavy metal accumulation content, ultimately improving the phyto-stabilization process efficiency [95,96]. Mycorrhizae enhance phytoremediation by trapping heavy metals on fungal mycelium (as a physical barrier) and immobilizing them in the soil through gloaming, limiting their bioavailability, transport, and bioaccumulation in plant tissues [97,98]. It is reported that AMF extra radical mycelium could accumulate 10 to 20 times more Cd per biomass unit than non-mycorrhizal plants in plant roots [99]. According to some recent studies, fungal spores, arbuscules, and vesicles may be involved in the storage of HMs, providing further protection against metal toxicity [96]. Soybean grown in the contaminated soils inoculated with AMF (Funneliformis mosseae) were more tolerant in alleviating the toxicity of the metal by retaining the heavy metals in the roots, thereby reducing translocation of Cu, Pb, and Zn in the aerial part of the plant and improving the overall plant productivity [100].
Nowadays through genetic manipulation of their rhizobial microsymbiont, various attempts have been undertaken to increase plant growth in the presence of toxic metal concentrations. One method is to introduce a new heavy-metal resistant gene into the rhizobium. For example, inoculation with wild type S. medicae of a genetically engineered M. truncatula strain, which expressed a metallothionein gene from Arabidopsis thaliana in its roots, resulted in increased Cu tolerance [101]. Similarly, a modified strain was developed by transferring an algal As (III) methyltransferase gene (arsM) to R. leguminosarum bv. trifolii that could methylate and volatilize inorganic arsenic in symbiosis with red clover without any negative effect on nitrogen fixation [102]. Additionally, some genes associated with improved legume-Rhizobium symbiosis have been identified [103,104,105]. Therefore, genomic manipulation strategies for improving the rhizobial should be used to increase heavy-metal tolerance. Another option is to develop a phylogenetically-related strain by incorporating large resistance plasmids from a non-symbiotic (but highly resistant), which form a symbiotic metal-sensitive strain. Kong et al., [93] reported that ACC deaminase overproduces S. meliloti strain, increased Cu tolerance, and promoted plant growth in the host plant M. lupulina. Taken together, heavy metal tolerant-plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (HMT-PGPR) represent a new eco-friendly ‘green-clean’ technology with tremendous potential for crop growth regulation and polluted soil remediation under heavy metal contamination conditions to increase crop yields and farmer livelihood.

5. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Environmental pollution is a key problem that is considered one of the biggest challenges of this century during these rapidly changing environmental conditions, which affect the agricultural productivity of the plant. Legumes that grow in heavy metal-contaminated regions tend to accumulate higher amounts of hazardous metals, leading to contamination of the food chain. If adequate steps are not implemented at the appropriate time, the conditions may significantly worsen. Finding appropriate solutions to protect the environment is an important task to save our environment for future generations. Heavy metals are transported with the transpiration stream in the xylem from the roots to transpiring shoot parts. The anatomical structures of different vegetative parts, such as root, stem, and leaves, are crucial for transporting the HMs into the shoot, their redistribution, and further distribution in aerial plant parts. Anatomical structure plays an important role in heavy metal transport and phyto-volatilization through leaves. Several researchers reported that the inoculation of heavy metal-resistant microbes increases metal uptake. Biotechnological approaches that use plants and micro-organisms (fungi, bacteria, yeast, and microalgae) to detoxify and stabilize HMs have therefore emerged as developing and creative technologies that show increasing potential for restoring HM-contaminated soils. For moderately contaminated soils, biological remediation, such as phytoremediation and PGPR, can be the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective approach. For an effective reclamation, the microbial remediation strategy could be combined with phytoremediation methods such as phytostabilization, phytoextraction, and phytovolatilization. Future research must focus on combining the effect of different microbes on phytoremediation efficiency, such as coupled microbial remediation with organic and inorganic chelating amendments, which must be investigated. Metagenomics approaches and microbial metabolic analysis in conjunction with other omics technologies need to be explored to select promising metal resistance and detoxification genes to determine their specific contribution toward improving key plant attributes, such as quality, yield, shelf life, etc. Moreover, more genomic research such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology is required to fully understand the metabolic pathways and the mechanisms involved in microbes’ and plants’ tolerance and detoxification of heavy metals.

Author Contributions

A.K.P., L.Z. and P.X. conceptualized the idea, planned MS content, coordinated with co-authors, and finalized the manuscript. A.K.P., L.Z. and P.X. contributed to planning the manuscript content and contributed special sections. T.S., D.K., P.F., M.B., X.W. and J.L. contributed in different sections of the MS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is partially supported by the Sino-Serbian exchange project (2021–2023 to Pei Xu and Lana Zoric) funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of China and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia and the fund of Hubei Engineering Research Center for Protection and Utilization of Special Biological Resources in the Hanjiang River Basin (Grant No. 2021–2023).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Seleiman, M.F.; Santanen, A.; Mäkelä, P.S. Recycling sludge on cropland as fertilizer–Advantages and risks. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Seleiman, M.F.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; El-Hendawy, S.; Abdella, K.; Alotaibi, M.; Alderfasi, A. Impacts of long-and short-term of irrigation with treated wastewater and synthetic fertilizers on the growth, biomass, heavy metal content, and energy traits of three potential bioenergy crops in arid regions. Energies 2021, 14, 3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ghorani-Azam, A.; Riahi-Zanjani, B.; Balali-Mood, M. Effects of air pollution on human health and practical measures for prevention in Iran. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2016, 21, 65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Luo, L.; Wang, B.; Jiang, J.; Huang, Q.; Yu, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J.; Yang, C.; Zhang, H. Heavy metal contaminations in herbal medicines: Determination, comprehensive risk assessments. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 595335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Luo, X.S.; Xue, Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Cang, L.; Xu, B.; Ding, J. Source identification and apportionment of heavy metals in urban soil profiles. Chemosphere 2015, 127, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Singh, U.K.; Kumar, B. Pathways of heavy metals contamination and associated human health risk in Ajay River basin, India. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tak, H.I.; Ahmad, F.; Babalola, O.O. Advances in the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in phytoremediation of heavy metals. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 223, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rai, K.K.; Pandey, N.; Meena, R.P.; Rai, S.P. Biotechnological strategies for enhancing heavy metal tolerance in neglected and underutilized legume crops: A comprehensive review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saha, S.; Saha, B.N.; Pati, S.; Pal, B.; Hazra, G.C. Agricultural use of sewage sludge in India: Benefits and potential risk of heavy metals contamination and possible remediation options–a review. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2017, 20, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garg, N.; Singla, P. Arsenic toxicity in crop plants: Physiological effects and tolerance mechanisms. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2011, 9, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yan, A.; Wang, Y.; Tan, S.N.; Mohd Yusof, M.L.; Ghosh, S.; Chen, Z. Phytoremediation: A promising approach for revegetation of heavy metal-polluted land. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Singh, N.K.; Singh, R.P. Potential of plants and microbes for the removal of metals: Eco-friendly approach for remediation of soil and water. In Plant Metal Interaction; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 469–482. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buhari, M.; Sulaiman, B.; Vyas, N.L.; Badaru, S.; Harisu, U. Role of biotechnology in phytoremediation. J. bioremediat. Biodegrad. 2016, 7, 330. [Google Scholar]
  14. Salem, H.M.; Abdel-Salam, A.; Abdel-Salam, M.A.; Seleiman, M.F. Phytoremediation of metal and metalloids from contaminated soil. In Plants under Metal and Metalloid Stress; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 249–262. [Google Scholar]
  15. Whiting, S.N.; de Souza, M.P.; Terry, N. Rhizosphere bacteria mobilize Zn for hyperaccumulation by Thlaspi caerulescens. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 3144–3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xia, W.; Zhang, P.; Wu, X.; Li, M.; Sun, T.; Fang, P.; Pandey, A.K.; Xu, P. Mutant library resources for legume crops and the emerging new screening technologies. Euphytica 2022, 218, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Snafi, A.E. The pharmacology and medical importance of Dolichos lablab (Lablab purpureus)-a review. IOSR J. Pharm. Biol. Sci. 2017, 7, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hu, Y.; Pandey, A.K.; Wu, X.; Fang, P.; Xu, P. The Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi in Drought Tolerance in Legume Crops: A Review. Legume Res.-Int. J. 2022, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naeem, M.; Shabbir, A.; Ansari, A.A.; Aftab, T.; Khan, M.M.A.; Uddin, M. Hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus L.)–An underutilised crop with future potential. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 272, 109551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arif, N.; Yadav, V.; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Ahmad, P.; Mishra, R.K.; Sharma, S.; Tripathi, D.K.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K. Influence of high and low levels of plant-beneficial heavy metal ions on plant growth and development. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morkunas, I.; Woźniak, A.; Mai, V.C.; Rucińska-Sobkowiak, R.; Jeandet, P. The role of heavy metals in plant response to biotic stress. Molecules 2018, 23, 2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pérez Chaca, M.V.; Vigliocco, A.; Reinoso, H.; Molina, A.; Abdala, G.; Zirulnik, F.; Pedranzani, H. Effects of cadmium stress on growth, anatomy and hormone contents in Glycine max (L.). Merr. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2014, 36, 2815–2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abdo, F.A.; Nassar, D.M.A.; Gomaa, E.F.; Nassar, R.M.A. Minimizing the Harmful Effects of Cadmium on Vegetative Growth, Leaf Anatomy, Yield and Physiological Characteristics of Soybean Plant (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) by Foliar Spray with Active Yeast Extract or with Garlic Cloves Extract. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2012, 8, 24–35. [Google Scholar]
  24. Skórzynska-Polit, E.; Bednara, J.; Baszynski, T. Some aspects of runner bean plant response to cadmium at different stages of the primary leaf growth. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 1995, 64, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. El Hocine, K.; Bellout, Y.; Amghar, F. Effect of cadmium stress on the polyphenol content, morphological, physiological and anatomical parameters of common bean (Phaeolus vulgaris L.). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 3757–3774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zornoza, P.; Vázquez, S.; Esteban, E.; Fernández-Pascual, M.; Carpena, R. Cadmium-stress in nodulated white lupin: Strategies to avoid toxicity. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2002, 40, 1003–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Talano, M.A.; Cejas, R.B.; González, P.S.; Agostini, E. Arsenic effect on the model crop symbiosis Bradyrhizobium–soybean. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 63, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ahmad, S.H.; Reshi, Z.; Ahmad, J.; Iqbal, M. Morpho-anatomical responses of Trigonella foenum graecum Linn. to induced cadmium and lead stress. J. Plant Biol. 2005, 48, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shi, G.; Sun, L.; Wang, X.; Liu, C. Leaf responses to iron nutrition and low cadmium in peanut: Anatomical properties in relation to gas exchange. Plant Soil 2014, 375, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shukry, W.M.; Al-Osaimi, A.A. Effect of sequential concentrations of zinc and its combination with calcium or glutathione on the growth, water relations and anatomy of roots, stems and leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris cv. Contender. Int. J. Res. Granthaalayah 2019, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Armendariz, A.L.; Talano, M.A.; Travaglia, C.; Reinoso, H.; Oller, A.L.W.; Agostini, E. Arsenic toxicity in soybean seedlings and their attenuation mechanisms. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 98, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ibañez, S.G.; Travaglia, C.N.; Medina, M.I.; Agostini, E. Vicia villosa Roth: A cover crop to phytoremediate arsenic polluted environments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 38604–38612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pita-Barbosa, A.; Gonçalves, E.C.; Azevedo, A.A. Morpho-anatomical and growth alterations induced by arsenic in Cajanus cajan (L.) DC (Fabaceae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11265–11274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ahmad, E.; Zaidi, A.; Khan, M.S.; Oves, M. Heavy metal toxicity to symbiotic nitrogen-fiXing microorganism and host legumes. In ToXicity of Heavy Metals to Legumes and Bioremediation; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2012; pp. 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  35. D’Souza, M.R.; Devaraj, V.R. Oxidative stress biomarkers and metabolic changes associated with cadmium stress in hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 4670–4682. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruthrof, K.X.; Fontaine, J.B.; Hopkins, A.J.; McHenry, M.P.; O’Hara, G.; McComb, J.; Hardy, G.E.S.J.; Howieson, J. Potassium amendment increases biomass and reduces heavy metal concentrations in Lablab purpureus after phosphate mining. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Palma, F.; Lo’pez-Go´mez, M.; Tejera, N.A.; Lluch, C. Salicylic acid improves the salinity tolerance of Medicago sativa in symbiosis with Sinorhizobium meliloti by preventing nitrogen fiXation inhibition. Plant Sci. 2013, 208, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Soto, M.J.; Fern´andez-Aparicio, M.; Castellanos-Morales, V.; García-Garrido, J.M.; Ocampo, J.A.; Delgado, M.J.; Vierheilig, H. First indications for the involvement of strigolactones on nodule formation in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 383–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lebrazi, S.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Rhizobium-legume symbioses: Heavy metal effects and principal approaches for bioremediation of contaminated soil. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 205–233. [Google Scholar]
  40. Alam, M.Z.; Hoque, M.A.; Ahammed, G.J.; McGee, R.; Carpenter-Boggs, L. Arsenic accumulation in lentil (Lens culinaris) genotypes and risk associated with the consumption of grains. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 9431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Laghlimi, M.; Baghdad, B.; El Hadi, H.; Bouabdli, A. Phytoremediation mechanisms of heavy metal contaminated soils: A review. Open Ecol. J. 2015, 5, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Galal, T.M.; Hassan, L.M.; Ahmed, D.A.; Alamri, S.A.; Alrumman, S.A.; Eid, E.M. Heavy metals uptake by the global economic crop (Pisum sativum L.) grown in contaminated soils and its associated health risks. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Haider, F.U.; Liqun, C.; Coulter, J.A.; Cheema, S.A.; Wu, J.; Zhang, R.; Wenjun, M.; Farooq, M. Cadmium toxicity in plants: Impacts and remediation strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 211, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Srivastava, D.; Tiwari, M.; Dutta, P.; Singh, P.; Chawda, K.; Kumari, M.; Chakrabarty, D. Chromium stress in plants: Toxicity, tolerance and phytoremediation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Collin, S.; Baskar, A.; Geevarghese, D.M.; Ali, M.N.V.S.; Bahubali, P.; Choudhary, R.; Lvov, V.; Tovar, G.I.; Senatov, F.; Koppala, S.; et al. Bioaccumulation of Lead (Pb) and its effects in plants: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 3, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, J.; Jia, Y.; Dong, R.; Huang, R.; Liu, P.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, G.; Chen, Z. Advances in the mechanisms of plant tolerance to manganese toxicity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Akeel, A.; Jahan, A. Role of cobalt in plants: Its stress and alleviation. In Contaminants in Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 339–357. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schmidt, W.; Thomine, S.; Buckhout, T.J. Iron nutrition and interactions in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10, 1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fusconi, A.; Repetto, O.; Bona, E.; Massa, N.; Gallo, C.; Dumas-Gaudot, E.; Berta, G. Effects of cadmium on meristem activity and nucleus ploidy in roots of Pisum sativum L. cv. Frisson seedlings. Environ. Exp. Bot 2006, 58, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kazemi, E.M.; Kolahi, M.; Yazdi, M.; Goldson-Barnaby, A. Anatomic features, tolerance index, secondary metabolites and protein content of chickpea (Cicer arientinum) seedlings under cadmium induction and identification of PCS and FC genes. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2020, 26, 1551–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Murtaza, G.; Javed, W.; Hussain, A.; Wahid, A.; Murtaza, B.; Owens, G. Metal uptake via phosphate fertilizer and city sewage in cereal and legume crops in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 9136–9147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yadav, V.; Arif, N.; Kovac, J.; Singh, V.P.; Tripathi, D.K.; Chauhan, D.K.; Vaculik, M. Structural modifications of plant organs and tissues by metals and metalloids in the environment: A review. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 159, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lux, A.; Šottníková, A.; Opatrná, J.; Greger, M. Differences in structure of adventitious roots in Salix clones with contrasting characteristics of cadmium accumulation and sensitivity. Physiol. Plant. 2004, 120, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Batool, R.; Hameed, M.; Ashraf, M.; Ahmad, M.S.A.; Fatima, S. Physio-anatomical responses of plants to heavy metals. In Phytoremediation for Green Energy; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  56. Römer, W.; Kang, D.K.; Egle, K.; Gerke, J.; Keller, H. The acquisition of cadmium by Lupinus albus L., Lupinus angustifolius L., and Lolium multiflorum Lam. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000, 163, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Page, V.; Weisskopf, L.; Feller, U. Heavy metals in white lupin: Uptake, root-to-shoot transfer and redistribution within the plant. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bouazizi, H.; Jouili, H.; Geitmann, A.; El Ferjani, E. Structural changes of cell wall and lignifying enzymes modulations in bean roots in response to copper stress. Biol. Trace Elem Res. 2010, 136, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rahoui, S.; Martinez, Y.; Sakouhi, L.; Ben, C.; Rickauer, M.; El Ferjani, E.; Gentzbittel, L.; Chaoui, A. Cadmium-induced changes in antioxidative systems and differentiation in roots of contrasted Medicago truncatula lines. Protoplasma 2017, 254, 473–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Talukdar, D. Arsenic-induced oxidative stress in the common bean legume, Phaseolus vulgaris L. seedlings and its amelioration by exogenous nitric oxide. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013, 19, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liza, S.J.; Shethi, K.J.; Rashid, P. Effects of cadmium on the anatomical structures of vegetative organs of chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.). Dhaka Univ. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 29, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gzyl, J.; Chmielowska-bak, J.; Przymusinski, R. Gamma-tubulin distribution and ultrastructural changes in root cells of soybean (Glycine max L.) seedlings under cadmium stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2017, 143, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, S.; Ren, X.; Huang, B.; Wang, G.; Zhou, P.; An, Y. Aluminium-induced reduction of plant growth in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is mediated by interrupting auxin transport and accumulation in roots. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lavres Junior, J.; Malavolta, E.; Nogueira, N.D.L.; Moraes, M.F.; Reis, A.R.; Rossi, M.L.; Cabral, C.P. Changes in anatomy and root cell ultrastructure of soybean genotypes under manganese stress. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 2009, 33, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. dos Santos, E.F.; Santini, J.M.K.; Paixão, A.P.; Júnior, E.F.; Lavres, J.; Campos, M.; Dos Reis, A.R. Physiological highlights of manganese toxicity symptoms in soybean plants: Mn toxicity responses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 113, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pandey, N.; Bhatt, R. Role of soil associated Exiguobacterium in reducing arsenic toxicity and promoting plant growth in Vigna radiate. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016, 75, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sresty, T.V.S.; Rao, K.V.M. Ultrastructural alterations in response to zinc and nickel stress in the root cells of pigeonpea. Environ. Exp. Bot. 1999, 41, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schreiber, L.; Hartman, K.; Skrabs, M.; Zeier, J. Apoplastic barriers in roots: Chemical composition of endodermal and hypodermal cell walls. J. Exp. Bot. 1999, 50, 1267–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. dos Reis, A.R.; Queiroz Barcelos, J.P.; Souza Osório, C.R.W.; Santos, E.F.; Lisboa, L.A.M.; Kondo Santini, J.M.; Santos, M.J.D.; Furlani Junior, E.; Campos, M.; Figueiredo, P.A.M.; et al. A glimpse into the physiological, biochemical and nutritional status of soybean plants under Ni-stress conditions. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2017, 144, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tripathi, P.; Singh, P.C.; Mishra, A.; Chaudhry, V.; Mishra, S.; Tripathi, R.D.; Nautiyal, C.S. Trichoderma inoculation ameliorates arsenic induced phytotoxic changes in gene expression and stem anatomy of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013, 89, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Shi, G.R.; Cai, Q.S. Photosynthetic and anatomic responses of peanut leaves to cadmium stress. Photosynthetica 2008, 46, 627–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shi, G.R.; Cai, Q.S. Photosynthetic and anatomic responses of peanut leaves to zinc stress. Biol. Plant. 2009, 53, 391–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vezza, M.E.; Alemano, S.; Agostini, E.; Talano, M.A. Arsenic Toxicity in Soybean Plants: Impact on Chlorophyll Fluorescence, Mineral Nutrition and Phytohormones. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 41, 2719–2731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gupta, P.; Bhatnagar, A.K. Spatial distribution of arsenic in different leaf tissues and its effecton structure and development of stomata and trichomes in mung bean, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 109, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bouazizi, H.; Jouili, H.; Geitmann, A.; El Ferjani, E. Cell wall accumulation of Cu ions and modulation of lignifying enzymes in primary leaves of bean seedlings exposed to excess copper. Biol. Trace Elem Res. 2011, 139, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Minnocci, A.; Francini, A.; Romeoa, S.; Sgrignuoli, A.D.; Povero, G.; Sebastiani, L. Zn-localization and anatomical changes in leaf tissues of green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) following foliar application of Zn-lignosulfonate and ZnEDTA. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 231, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kasim, W.A. Physiological Consequences of Structural and Ultra-structural Changes Induced by Zn Stress in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Growth and Photosynthetic Apparatus. Int. J. Bot. 2007, 3, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vezza, M.E.; Llanes, A.; Travaglia, C.; Agostini, E.; Talano, M.A. Arsenic stress effects on root water absorption in soybean plants: Physiological and morphological aspects. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 123, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Rabani, M.S.; Hameed, I.; Mir, T.A.; Gupta, M.K.; Habib, A.; Jan, M.; Hussain, H.; Tripathi, S.; Pathak, A.; Ahad, M.B.; et al. Microbial-assisted phytoremediation. In Phytoremediation; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 91–114. [Google Scholar]
  80. Jan, R.; Khan, M.A.; Asaf, S.; Lee, I.J.; Kim, K.M. Metal resistant endophytic bacteria reduces cadmium, nickel toxicity, and enhances expression of metal stress related genes with improved growth of Oryza sativa, via regulating its antioxidant machinery and endogenous hormones. Plants 2019, 8, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Olaniran, A.O.; Balgobind, A.; Pillay, B. Bioavailability of heavy metals in soil: Impact on microbial biodegradation of organic compounds and possible improvement strategies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 10197–10228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Gupta, P.; Diwan, B. Bacterial exopolysaccharide mediated heavy metal removal: A review on biosynthesis, mechanism and remediation strategies. Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 13, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bilal, S.; Shahzad, R.; Khan, A.L.; Kang, S.M.; Imran, Q.M.; Al-Harrasi, A.; Yun, B.W.; Lee, I.J. Endophytic microbial consortia of phytohormones-producing fungus Paecilomyces formosus LHL10 and bacteria Sphingomonas sp. LK11 to glycine max L. regulates physio-hormonal changes to attenuate aluminum and zinc stresses. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bianucci, E.; Godoy, A.; Furlan, A.; Peralta, J.M.; Hernández, L.E.; Carpena-Ruiz, R.O.; Castro, S. Arsenic toxicity in soybean alleviated by a symbiotic species of Bradyrhizobium. Symbiosis 2018, 74, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dary, M.; Chamber-Pérez, M.A.; Palomares, A.J.; Pajuelo, E. “In situ” phytostabilisation of heavy metal polluted soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with metal resistant plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sarathambal, C.; Khankhane, P.J.; Gharde, Y.; Kumar, B.; Varun, M.; Arun, S. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the growth, physiology, and Cd uptake of Arundo donax L. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, Y.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Wu, A.; Huang, J. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth and nitrogen uptake of Chrysanthemum morifolium under salt stress. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Janeeshma, E.; Puthur, J.T. Direct and indirect influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on enhancing metal tolerance of plants. Arch. Microbiol. 2020, 202, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wang, X.; Fang, L.; Beiyuan, J.; Cui, Y.; Peng, Q.; Zhu, S.; Wang, M.; Zhang, X. Improvement of alfalfa resistance against Cd stress through rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi co-inoculation in Cd-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 277, 116758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Chen, J.; Liu, Y.Q.; Yan, X.W.; Wei, G.H.; Zhang, J.H.; Fang, L.C. Rhizobium inoculation enhances copper tolerance by affecting copper uptake and regulating the ascorbate-glutathione cycle and phytochelatin biosynthesis-related gene expression in Medicago sativa seedlings. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 162, 312–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Ismaila, H.Y.; Ijahb, U.J.J.; Riskuwac, M.L.; Allamina, I.A.; Isaha, M.A. Assessment of phytoremediation potentials of legumes in spent engine oil contaminated soil. Eur. J. Environ. Saf. Sci. 2014, 2, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  92. Stambulska, U.Y.; Bayliak, M.M.; Lushchak, V.I. Chromium (VI) toxicity in legume plants: Modulation effects of rhizobial symbiosis. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 8031213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kong, Z.; Glick, B.R.; Duan, J.; Ding, S.; Tian, J.; McConkey, B.J.; Wei, G. Effects of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase-overproducing Sinorhizobium meliloti on plant growth and copper tolerance of Medicago lupulina. Plant Soil. 2015, 70, 5891–5897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Singh, J.S.; Singh, D.P. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Microbes in sustainable agriculture. In Management of Microbial Resources in the Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 361–385. [Google Scholar]
  95. Raklami, A.; Oufdou, K.; Tahiri, A.I.; Mateos-Naranjo, E.; Navarro-Torre, S.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Meddich, A.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Pajuelo, E. Safe cultivation of Medicago sativa in metal-polluted soils from semi-arid regions assisted by heat-and metallo-resistant PGPR. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Raklami, A.; Tahiri, A.I.; Bechtaoui, N.; Pajuelo, E.; Baslam, M.; Meddich, A.; Oufdou, K. Restoring the plant productivity of heavy metal-contaminated soil using phosphate sludge, marble waste, and beneficial microorganisms. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 99, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Coninx, L.; Martinova, V.; Rineau, F. Mycorrhiza-assisted phytoremediation. Adv. Bot. Res. 2017, 83, 127–188. [Google Scholar]
  98. Riaz, M.; Kamran, M.; Fang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Cao, H.; Yang, G.; Deng, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Anastopoulos, I.; et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-induced mitigation of heavy metal phytotoxicity in metal contaminated soils: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cabral, L.; Soares, C.R.F.S.; Giachini, A.J.; Siqueira, J.O. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in phytoremediation of contaminated areas by trace elements: Mechanisms and major benefits of their applications. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 1655–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Adeyemi, N.O.; Atayese, M.O.; Sakariyawo, O.S.; Azeez, J.O.; Abayomi Sobowale, S.P.; Olubode, A.; Mudathir, R.; Adebayo, R.; Adeoye, S. Alleviation of heavy metal stress by arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in Glycine max (L.) grown in copper, lead and zinc contaminated soils. Rhizosphere 2021, 18, 100325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pérez-Palacios, P.; Romero-Aguilar, A.; Delgadillo, J.; Doukkali, B.; Caviedes, M.A.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Pajuelo, E. Double genetically modified symbiotic system for improved Cu phytostabilization in legume roots. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 14910–14923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Zhang, J.; Xu, Y.; Cao, T.; Chen, J.; Rosen, B.P.; Zhao, F.J. Arsenic methylation by a genetically engineered Rhizobium-legume symbiont. Plant Soil. 2017, 416, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zaefarian, F.; Rezvani, M.; Ardakani, M.R.; Rejali, F.; Miransari, M. Impact of mycorrhizae formation on the phosphorus and heavy-metal uptake of Alfalfa. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2013, 44, 1340–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Amer, N.; Chami, Z.A.; Bitar, L.A.; Mondelli, D.; Dumontet, S. Evaluation of Atriplex halimus, Medicago lupulina and Portulaca oleracea for phytoremediation of Ni, Pb, and Zn. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2013, 15, 498–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chen, F.; Wang, S.; Mou, S.; Azimuddin, I.; Zhang, D.; Pan, X.; Al-Misned, F.A.; Mortuza, M.G. Physiological responses and accumulation of heavy metals and arsenic of Medicago sativa L. growing on acidic copper mine tailings in arid lands. J. Geochem. Explor. 2015, 157, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.