Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Nutrition of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Varies with Defoliation
Previous Article in Journal
Time of Day Analysis over a Field Grown Developmental Time Course in Rice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Plant Species Complementarity in Low-Fertility Degraded Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/plants12010167
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Willow and Herbaceous Species’ Phytoremediation Potential in Zn-Contaminated Farm Field Soil in Eastern Québec, Canada: A Greenhouse Feasibility Study

by
Alexandre Licinio
,
Joan Laur
*,
Frederic E. Pitre
and
Michel Labrecque
Institut de Recherche en Biologie Végétale, Université de Montréal, Jardin Botanique de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1X 2B2, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(1), 167; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010167
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 17 November 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 30 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fundamental and Applied Research for the Effective Deployment of Phytoremediation 2022)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phytoremediation shows great promise as a plant-based alternative to conventional clean-up methods that are prohibitively expensive. As part of an integrated strategy, the selection of well-adapted plant species as well as planting and management techniques could determine the success of a long-term program. Herein, we conducted an experiment under semi-controlled conditions to screen different plants species with respect to their ability to phytoremediate Zn-contaminated soil excavated from a contaminated site following a train derailment and spillage. The effect of nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) application on the plants and soil was also comprehensively evaluated, albeit we did not find its use relevant for field application. In less than 100 days, substantial Zn removal occurred in the soil zone proximal to the roots of all the tested plant species. Three perennial herbaceous species were tested, namely, Festuca arundinacea, Medicago sativa, and a commercial mix purposely designed for revegetation; they all showed strong capacity for phytostabilization at the root level but not for phytoextraction. The Zn content in the aboveground biomass of willows was much higher. Furthermore, the degree of growth, physiological measurements, and the Zn extraction yield indicated Salix purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ could perform better than Salix miyabeana, ‘SX67’, in situ. Therefore, we suggest implementing an S. purpurea—perennial herbaceous co-cropping strategy at this decade-long-abandoned contaminated site or at similar disrupted landscapes.

1. Introduction

Among the different types of pollution resulting from human activities, industrial negligence plays a large part in the deterioration of the environment. Not only do industrial facilities affect their immediate surroundings but contamination can extend to much more distant locations [1]. The contamination of otherwise preserved areas occurs through atmospheric or aquatic contamination and because of the improper storage and transportation of hazardous substances [2,3] According to the European Environment Agency [4], about 10% of surface soil contamination results from the spillage of chemicals and trace elements during transport.
In Canada, the Environmental Protection Act [5] requires environmental emergencies to be reported and duly managed. However, immediate control procedures—such as the clean-up that was carried out in the heart of the Bas-Saint-Laurent agricultural region at Saint-Octave-De-Métis (QC, Canada) after a derailed freight train spilled Zinc (Zn) in 2004—cannot exclude the risk of the contamination of the surrounding area. In fact, the complete remediation and long-term monitoring of the nearby arable lands was considered impractical and was, therefore, neglected, as happens all too often [6,7].
Indeed, conventional remediation methods are prohibitively expensive and not fully appropriate in the context of marginal lands adjacent to agricultural sites [8]. Comparatively, phytoremediation is a more viable option, as it takes advantage of the natural properties of plants, and associated microorganisms, to extract or degrade soil contaminants [9]. Besides a high level of societal acceptance, it also has the advantage of being up to ten-fold cheaper than regular physical or chemical techniques [10] and is also particularly well-suited to the management of degraded and moderately contaminated soils such as the large post-incident site at Saint-Octave-De-Métis [11]. Obvious environmental impacts associated with intrusive remediation activities are reduced with “green” alternatives and the implementation of a well-planned revegetation program is a rather valuable ecological asset [12]. In addition to reducing environmental hazards through contaminant removal and limiting soil erosion and/or local immobilization, phytoremediation can further improve soil quality and regenerate landscape fertility—two additional environmental services that should be proactively maintained [13,14]. For example, the successful phytomanagement of a large mine-spill site in the Guadiamar Valley (Spain) led to the noteworthy development of the Green Corridor program in the late 1990s, now a 55 km2 biodiversity hotspot [15,16,17]. The number of similar projects and small-to-large scale trials keeps rising, thereby allowing phytoresearchers, state regulators, and end-users to design a sustainable future faster and more adequately.
In that respect, feasibility studies under controlled conditions are necessary to minimize the degree of uncertainty regarding long-term outcomes and ensure successful site clean-up [18,19]. the optimal selection of plants [20,21] and management techniques [22,23] are crucial points to be addressed, especially where harsh climatic conditions result in the challenges of soil pollution, as is the case for a train derailment site that is located in a plant zone with a hardiness of 4a (minimum temperature of −34.4 °C to −31.7 °C [24]; growing season length < 140 days [25]).
Conceptually, hyperaccumulating plants are ideal for high-profit commercial applications (phytomining); however, they are rarely productive enough to be suitable for large-scale revegetation schemes [26,27]. Only twenty Zn-hyperaccumulator species are reported in the Global Hyperaccumulator Database [28], none of which grow in our northern latitudes. Therefore, metal-tolerant, low-maintenance, and high-biomass-producing species or species combinations are recommended, especially since their phytoremediation ability can be further enhanced through induced phytoremediation [29,30,31]. However, even the use of so-called environmentally friendly chelating agents such as nitrilotriacetatic acid (NTA) is far from perfect and should be considered very carefully to avoid further leaching of metal–chelate complexes and symptoms of toxicity in plants [23,32,33,34]. Accordingly, as they are adapted to the harsh northern climatic conditions, several plant candidates have been identified in the literature [35,36,37,38,39,40]. In a recent field study [41], Salix purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ and S. miyabeana ‘SX67’, which were initially selected as energy crops, phytoextracted a significant amount of Zn after three years of growth in polluted soil in Valcartier, Québec, Canada. The properties regarding revegetation ability and contamination tolerance possessed by forage species such as Festuca arundinacea [42] and Medicago sativa [43] or of other herbaceous species with dense root systems are also well documented, for example, Andropogon gerardii [44], Avena sativa [45], Deschampsia cespitosa [46], Elymus spp. [47], Festuca rubra [48], Lolium multiflorum [49], Panicum virgatum [50], Poa pratensis [51], and Spartina pectinata [52,53]. Purposely designed for the stabilization of disrupted landscapes and retrogressed soils, an affordable commercial seed mixture of the latter herbaceous species could, therefore, be used in the context of a phytoremediation program such as the one that should be deployed in the bare soil at Saint-Octave-De-Métis.
The species-specific and complementary properties of plants growing in contaminated soil with or without the implementation of biodegradable synthetic chelator amendment must be evaluated before the complete design of phytomanagement schemes to limit further detrimental secondary impacts and optimize phytoremediation efficiency. We conducted an experiment under semi-controlled conditions to evaluate the phytoremediation ability of different plant species growing in moderately Zn-contaminated soil excavated fifteen years after a spillage incident and its initial cleanup. The main objectives were to (1) find an efficient phytoremediation strategy to depollute/confine Zn-contaminated soil; to (2) screen S. purpurea, S. miyabeana, M. sativa, F. arundinacea, and a commercial grass mix for their growth and Zn uptake effectiveness in that context; and, finally, to (3) investigate the effect of NTA applications on plants and soil. The three-month study measured changes in Zn concentration in the shoots, dry shoot biomass, and willow height and chlorophyll content. Changes in Zn soil content were also carefully monitored.

2. Results

2.1. Zn Removal in Rhizospheric Soil

Phytoextraction was effective in the soil zone proximal to the roots of all the tested plants. At the end of the experiment, there was no interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment (p-value = 0.897) and the effect of the NTA treatment was not significant (p-value = 0.267); however, while the total Zn content had only changed by 1.5% (6 mg kg−1) in the unplanted pots, it was reduced by >11% (47 mg kg−1) in the planted pots (Table 1A, p-value < 0.001). Interestingly, there was no difference regarding Zn removal between plant species per se, even if we observed a much greater variability of the total Zn removal in the root zone of willows compared to the other species; both the smallest (8 mg kg−1) and the largest (85 mg kg−1) changes in Zn concentration were found in pots planted with willow cuttings.
The two factors plant species and soil treatment interacted to influence the evolution of soil-bioavailable Zn during the experiment (Table 1B, p-value < 0.001). While it remained unchanged in the control pots (no plants and no amendment), the bioavailable Zn content shifted when the pots were planted from 1.5 mg kg−1 at the beginning of the experiment to as low as 0.5 mg kg−1 (>60% removal) in the soil zone proximal to the roots of F. arundinacea and the commercial mix without the addition of NTA. The level of bioavailable Zn also reduced in the unplanted pots treated with NTA and in the root zone of F. arundinacea, M. sativa or the commercial mix, but to a lesser extent (compare data with/without NTA treatment Table 1A); it even increased >2.1–2.3 mg kg−1 in the pots planted with willow trees (>50% increase versus initial values).

2.2. Plants’ Establishment in Zn-Contaminated Soil

A number of parameters were used to evaluate the plants’ establishment in soil excavated from Saint-Octave-De-Métis and to assess the effects of the NTA treatment on growth and physiology. First, we carefully monitored the willow cuttings’ survival and the herbaceous species’ germination rate. Mortality occurred only marginally, as seen in Figure 1B. The willows’ establishment and that of the herbaceous species are best described in terms of quantifiable traits such as plant biomass production.
Regarding plant yield, there was no interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment, but the tested species differed significantly at the end of the experiment (Figure 1A, p-value < 0.001). After two months of treatment, Salix purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ produced a substantially greater level of shoot biomass than all the other plants, while the commercial mix of herbaceous species and Festuca arundinacea was the least productive with 30% and 38% less biomass, respectively, than the willows, with S. purpurea producing up to 622 g m−2 of biomass in the soil treated with NTA. Furthermore, the application of the chelating agent was beneficial to the growth of the two willows and to F. arundinacea, while it did not affect Medicago sativa nor the overall production of the commercial mix (Figure 1A, p-value < 0.01); the yield of S. purpurea, S. miyabeana, and F. arundinacea growing in the soil treated with NTA increased by 105, 70, and 70 g m−2.
Other growth and physiological traits were thoroughly investigated with respect to the two willow species (Figure 1B). There were significant differences between the two regarding plant height (±15 cm, p-value < 0.05), shoot number (±1.4, p-value < 0.01), and total chlorophyll content (±18 µg cm−2, p-value < 0.001). S. purpurea seemed to benefit more from NTA application than S. miyabeana, but no statistically significant differences were observed. For example, compared to the non-treated pots, the height of S. purpurea planted in the NTA-treated pots increased by 10 cm, whereas it was only 3 cm higher for S. miyabeana with NTA amendment compared to the plants growing in the control soil. When the chelating agent was used, shoot diameter and shoot number also slightly increased for S. purpurea, but not for S. miyabeana. Indeed, the interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment marginally affected chlorophyll content (p-value = 0.06). The leaves of S. purpurea growing in the NTA-treated soil had a chlorophyll content 5.6% higher than that of the plants growing in the untreated substrate, while the chlorophyll content of the leaves of S. miyabeana was 2.6% lower with the NTA treatment compared to no treatment.

2.3. Zn in Aboveground Plant Tissues

Regarding the plants’ Zn concentrations, there was an interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment (Figure 2A, p-value = 0.05). The concentration of Zn in the willow shoots indicated a Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) > 1.5; this was three times more concentrated than in the shoots of M. sativa (BCF = 0.5) or in those of the commercial mix (BCF = 0.6) and up to five times more than in F. arundinacea’s aboveground tissues (compare 765 mg kg−1 to 122 mg kg−1 of dry matter), for which the Zn was concentration was the lowest (BCF = 0.3). The NTA amendment negatively affected the Zn concentration in S. miyabeana’s aboveground biomass; no significant changes were observed for the other species.
With respect to the Zn extraction yield, there was also an interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment (Figure 2B). The extraction profiles for the herbaceous species were comparable to what was observed for the Zn shoot concentration; however, the highest extraction yield (four times higher) was not observed in S. miyabeana but for the S. purpurea trees growing in the soil treated with NTA (>400 mg m−2; 300 mg m−2 in all other willow trees). No other species were affected by the application of NTA.

3. Discussion

The present study helped us quickly determine a phytoremediation strategy that should be appropriate at Saint-Octave-De-Métis and in contaminated sites with similar characteristics. In less than 100 days, the herbaceous species and willow trees grown under semi-controlled conditions demonstrated high Zn phytoremediation potential.

3.1. Soil Remediation

Even if the measurement of a significant decrease in bulk soil metal content was neither in the scope of the present study nor expected after a single growing season [54,55,56], the careful monitoring of the Zn content in a rhizospheric substrate was much informative with respect to understanding the different mechanisms in place during this preliminary pot trial. In fact, the need for a second phase of remediation was confirmed by the initial measurements of the Zn concentration that far exceeded the legal threshold. Moreover, the slight depletion in the total metal concentration we measured at the end of the experiment in the unplanted pots verifies our concerns regarding potential runoff towards adjacent fields. According to Garcia et al. [57], a large amount of Zn in soil can be gradually released into a soil solution.
On the other hand, the results were encouraging since land left in a fallow condition for over a decade could readily benefit from cultivation. The decrease in Zn content was significantly stronger in the soil directly in contact with root systems than in the control pots, thus showing—with respect to plant growth and the context—the efficiency of the tested crops in terms of Zn phytostabilization and metal uptake. No tangible differences regarding total Zn removal were measured between the rhizospheres of the species tested. However, as expected, the addition of the chelant was able to increase Zn solubility and further modify the Zn equilibrium of this long-term-contaminated substrate, impairing the apparent removal of bioavailable contaminants for all except the willow species, for which this fraction even greatly increased in the rhizosphere, i.e., the roots appeared to be unable to locally compensate the substantial expansion of the Zn mobile fraction. These results revealed very distinct but complementary patterns of influence on the local soil properties. Indeed, willows are well known to extract large quantities of Zn [58] while herbaceous species have a high tolerance to contamination, although possessing lower phytoextraction capacity [43,59,60]. Therefore, we suggest that F. arundinacea, M. sativa, and the commercial mix can stabilize the immediate roots in the surrounding area and that the root system of the two water-demanding willows could have a stronger spatial influence and the ability to drain soil solutions from a larger volume. In addition, even though the mobile form of Zn rose in the tree rhizospheres, the environmental risk due to NTA application should be rather limited considering the minimal dosage we used [61,62] and the transient nature of the metal–NTA complexes [63], especially if willows and herbaceous species are cultivated together to maximize remediation potential [64].

3.2. Evaluation of Plant Species Candidates

All the tested species showed no significant level of mortality and good adaptation to the soil excavated from Saint-Octave-De-Métis despite the poor substrate quality and excessive Zn content. In accordance with a previous study on contaminated soil [65], we observed high yield differences between crops having an otherwise similar growth potential under optimal conditions (Laurent et al., 2015). Not surprisingly, the elite cultivar Salix purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ ranked first in this context and should be considered of particular value for the restoration of field sites. Indeed, it was selected for its high-performance across diverse field conditions [66] and because Courchesne et al. [41] had also determined its superiority over the high-yielding biomass of S. miyabeana ‘SX67’ during a three-year long phytoremediation field trial in southern Québec.
Among herbaceous species, the ‘nitrogen-fixer’ Medicago sativa produced significantly more shoots than Festuca arundinaceae, which was the poorest-performing species we have tested, and the same is true for the commercial mixture. Even if vegetation characterization and nodule number were not determined, as it was off-topic, we can assume that rhizobium–legume symbiosis and/or species diversity could have de facto resulted in the alleviation of stresses caused by the relative lack of resources [67] or by Zn contamination [64,68]. Furthermore, since amendment with a chelating agent is known to increase both the availability of metal ions as well as nutrient mobility, it is noteworthy that the NTA application did not have any influence on the aboveground growth of M. sativa or of the commercial mix, hence highlighting the overall resilience of the two tested crops [69].
On the contrary, the willow trees and F. arundinacea benefitted from the NTA application. As stated above, similar results have already been reported [70,71] for different plant species, among which were F. arundinacea [31] and Salix cultivars. In our case, S. purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ was the most responsive to the NTA application, while Zhivotovsky et al. [72] found a chelator-related growth benefit for the S. purpurea cultivar ‘Allegany’ growing in Pb-contaminated soil but not for S. miyabeana ‘SX64’, ‘SX61’, nor ‘SX67’. Along the same lines, the other recorded growth and physiological parameters indicated that S. purpurea was a better fit during this preliminary trial: the plant height, shoot number, and chlorophyll content were higher than in S. miyabeana, and they also tended to increase with the addition of NTA whilst the opposite occurred for S. miyabeana’s chlorophyll content. As chlorosis and retarded growth are phytotoxic symptoms caused by Zn [73], one could suspect that S. miyabeana had a lower tolerance to the soil excavated from Saint-Octave-De-Métis.

4. Conclusions

What Fits Best

Although cumbersome at first, the analysis of plant Zn content was undoubtedly valuable and has helped us in various ways to finally narrow down an optimal phytoremediation strategy. Although the degrees of contaminant removal in the rhizospheres were similar, the Zn content in the aboveground biomass differed strongly between species. This result per se confirmed the respective potentials of willows and herbaceous species for phytoextraction and phytostabilization in situ [74].
Furthermore, this experimental design under semi-controlled conditions allowed us to widen the scope of the present study. From one single homogenized substrate, we were able to investigate the plant response to two levels of bioavailable Zn contamination (i.e., with/without NTA)—an interesting proxy of the dynamic and heterogenous conditions encountered by crop roots in the field [75]. In fact, almost no plant benefited from treatment with the chelating agent in terms of Zn concentration—it even resulted in an impaired uptake for S. miyabeana. Therefore, we were able to reasonably speculate that the plant shoots had already reached the maximum viable Zn content [76,77,78], all the more so because Desjardins et al. in their work under comparable conditions [64] reported very similar Zn concentrations for S. miyabeana, F. arundinaceae, and M. sativa using a substrate doubly less contaminated.
Finally, in light of the physiological data and the monitoring of the Zn content in the plant tissues, the slight increase in the S. purpurea extraction yield in the presence of the chelant may be more related to the nutritional bioavailability improvement of the soil than to the contaminant per se. Concerning the use of NTA, which was impractical and irrelevant considering the lack of positive outcome revealed by this preliminary experiment, our suggestion would be to implement an S. purpurea-perennial herbaceous co-cropping strategy at the decade-long abandoned brownfield at Saint-Octave-De-Métis [68,79]. Although it requires relatively frequent coppicing, yielding a valuable biomass product nevertheless, to avoid contaminant entry in the food chain [80,81,82], this phytomanagement scenario that combines phytoextraction, phytostabilization, and phytorestoration is non-labor-intensive and would benefit local agrobiodiversity [37,83,84,85] (Futughe et al., 2020; Jacklin et al., 2021; Kuzovkina and Quigley, 2005; Mosseler et al., 2014).

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Experimental Design

In May 2017, an experiment was set up in the open-air greenhouse facility of the Montréal Botanical Garden (Montréal, QC, Canada). Thirty-centimetre-diameter plastic pots sealed with a plastic membrane to avoid water runoff were used and filled with eight litres of contaminated soil. The properties of the homogenized soil are depicted in Figure 3A and indicate Zn concentration exceeding Canadian criteria for both agricultural and residential land use for this substrate collected from the site of a freight train derailment and spill in Saint-Octave-De-Métis.
To assess the phytoremediation potential of different plant species and the effects of a chelating agent on their phytoextraction efficiency, two willow species (Salix purpurea ‘Fish Creek’ and S. miyabeana ‘SX67’), two grasses (Medicago sativa and Festuca arundinacea), and one commercial herbaceous mix (comprising Andropogon gerardii, Avena sativa, Deschampsia cespitosa, Elymus canadensis, Elymus trachycaulus, Festuca rubra, Lolium multiflorum, Panicum virgatum, Poa pratensis, and Spartina pectinata) were tested and/or treated with nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA).
The randomized block experimental design consisted of 60 experimental units (5 plant species + 1 control (non-planted)) × (2 NTA treatments (with/without)) × 5 replicates or blocks). One willow cutting was planted, or the equivalent of 15 kg ha−1 of grass seeds were sown per pot (Figure 3B). Plants were regularly watered throughout the experiment with tap water in order to maintain a good moisture content. NTA treatment began 30 days after plantation: to maintain an effective and stable soil concentration, NTA was applied every 5 days at a dose of 2 mmol per kg of soil; the pots that did not receive the chelating agent were given an equivalent volume (50 mL) of tap water.

5.2. Measurement Strategy, Soil and Plant Sampling, and Analyses

To evaluate the Zn phytoextraction ability and the effectiveness of the application of a chelating agent in the tested conditions, aboveground plant biomass, height, shoot number, leaf chlorophyll content (portable chlorophyll meter, atLeaf+), and plant-tissue Zn concentration were measured. Zn removal in soil (Zn removal = initial Zn concentration in soil—final Zn concentration in soil), Zn extraction yield (EY = above-ground plant biomass x concentration in aboveground plant biomass), and aboveground bioconcentration factor (BCF = metal concentration in plant/initial metal concentration in soil) were also determined. Soil samples were collected at the beginning of the experiment (ti); at 90 days after plantation, the soil was sampled again (tf), and the plants were harvested. Fresh aerial parts were oven-dried at 70 °C for 48 h to determine biomass dry weight (DW) and calculate yield.
The total (acid-recoverable) concentrations were determined in soil and plant tissues. Bioavailable (water-soluble) fraction of Zn was also analyzed. Zn content in soil (ti, tf) was determine by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (NexION 300× ICP-MS Spectrometer, Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA). For the bioavailable fraction, 4 g of dried and sieved (<500 µm) samples was 101 diluted in ultrapure water and placed into 50 mL tubes; then, the 50 mL tubes were shaken for 2 h, centrifuged at 1400× g for 15 min, and the supernatant was filtered through 0.45 µm nylon membrane to remove residual particles before a 15 mL mineralized filtrate acidified with 0.04 mL of HNO3 was added (50%, v/v). For the total Zn concentration in soil and plant tissues, 200 mg of ground dry material was digested with hot HNO3 according to Wilson et al. [86].

5.3. Data Analyses

All the statistical analyses were carried out using R software (R Development Core Team., Vienna, Austria, 2008) and SAS JMP v.9.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2012). Missing data (t0 soil samples (3)) were generated with MICE R package (Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations, available online: http://multiple-imputation.com, accessed on 13 December 2022). Complete transformations were performed when needed to respect normality and homoscedasticity assumptions; log transformations were performed with dry biomass and extraction yield data. Data were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (plant species × NTA treatment) followed by post hoc test when significant (between plant species: Tukey’s HSD; between NTA treatments: Student’s t-test). Finally, a Dunnett’s post hoc test was performed on the differential analysis of t0 and t1 soil Zn concentration variables. p ≤ 0.05 was used as significance level in all analyses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.E.P. and M.L.; Methodology, A.L., F.E.P. and M.L.; Formal analysis, J.L.; Writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; Writing—review and editing, A.L., J.L. and F.E.P. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC waived to J.L. as Plants guest editor.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alloway, B.J. Sources of heavy metals and metalloids in soils. In Heavy Metals in Soils; Alloway, B.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 11–50. [Google Scholar]
  2. Clemente, R.; Walker, D.J.; Roig, A.; Bernal, P. Heavy metal bioavailability in a soil affected by mineral sulphides contamination following the mine spillage at Aznalcollar (Spain). Biodegradation 2003, 14, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wang, Q.R.; Cui, Y.S.; Liu, X.M.; Dong, Y.T.; Christie, P. Soil contamination and plant uptake of heavy metals at polluted sites in china. J. Environ. Sci. Health-Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2003, 38, 823–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Van Liedekerke, M.; Prokop, G.; Rabl-Berger, S.; Kibblewhite, M.; Louwagie, G. Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33. Available online: https://canlii.ca/t/552zj (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  6. Babcsányi, I.; Chabaux, F.; Granet, M.; Meite, F.; Payraudeau, S.; Duplay, J.; Imfeld, G. Copper in soil fractions and runoff in a vineyard catchment: Insights from copper stable isotopes. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557–558, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Rodríguez, N.; McLaughlin, M.; Pennock, D. Soil Pollution: A Hidden Reality; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018; ISBN 978-92-5-130505-8. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Dumat, C. A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J. Geochem. Explor. 2016, 182, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bell, H.T.; Joly, S.; Pitre, F.E.; Yergeau, E. Increasing phytoremediation efficiency and reliability using novel omics approaches. Trends Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Salt, D.; Blaylock, M.; Kumar, N.; Dushenkov, V.; Ensley, B.; Chet, I.; Raskin, I. Phytoremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Biotechnology 1995, 13, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pilon-Smits, E. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2005, 56, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tordoff, G.; Baker, A.; Willis, A.J. Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere 2000, 41, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burges, A.; Alkorta, I.; Epelde, L.; Garbisu, C. From phytoremediation of soil contaminants to phytomanagement of ecosystem services in metal contaminated sites. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Keoleian, G.A.; Volk, T.A. Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: Life cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 385406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Domínguez, M.T.; Pérez-Ramos, I.M.; Murillo, J.M.; Marañón, T. Facilitating the afforestation of Mediterranean polluted soils by nurse shrubs. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 161, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Grimalt, J.O.; Macpherson, E. The environmental impact of the mine tailing accident in Aznalcóllar. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 242, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Madejón, P.; Domínguez, M.T.; Gil-Martínez, M.; Navarro-Fernández, C.M.; Montiel-Rozas, M.M.; Madejón, E.; Murillo, J.M.; Cabrera, F.; Marañón, T. Evaluation of amendment addition and tree planting as measures to remediate contaminated soils: The Guadiamar case study (SW Spain). Catena 2018, 166, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nadeau, M.N.; Laur, J.; Khasa, D.P. Mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria on precambrian rocky gold mine tailings: I. Mine-adapted symbionts promote white spruce health and growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Nadeau, M.N.; Laur, J.; Khasa, D.P. Mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria on precambrian rocky gold mine tailings: II. Mine-adapted symbionts alleviate soil element imbalance for a better nutritional status of white spruce seedlings. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Desjardins, D.; Pitre, F.E.; Nissim, W.G.; Labrecque, M. Differential uptake of silver, copper and zinc suggests complementary species-specific phytoextraction potential. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2016, 18, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Grenier, V.; Pitre, F.E.; Guidi Nissim, W.; Labrecque, M. Genotypic differences explain most of the response of willow cultivars to petroleum-contaminated soil. Trees Struct. Funct. 2015, 29, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Beauchamp, S.; Jerbi, A.; Frenette-Dussault, C.; Pitre, F.E.; Labrecque, M. Does the origin of cuttings influence yield and phytoextraction potential of willow in a contaminated soil? Ecol. Eng. 2018, 111, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Evangelou, M.W.H.; Ebel, M.; Schaeffer, A. Chelate assisted phytoextraction of heavy metals from soil. Effect, mechanism, toxicity, and fate of chelating agents. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 989–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Natural Resources Canada. Plant Hardiness of Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2017. Available online: http://www.planthardiness.gc.ca/index.pl?m=24&speciesid=1000000&phz=phz1961-1990&bc=1&&lang=en (accessed on 7 August 2019).
  25. Pedlar, J.H.; McKenney, D.W.; Lawrence, K.; Papadopol, P. A comparison of two approaches for generating spatial models of growing-season variables for Canada. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol. 2015, 54, 506–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stephenson, C.; Black, C.R. One step forward, two steps back: The evolution of phytoremediation into commercial technologies. Biosci. Horiz. Int. J. Stud. Res. 2014, 7, hzu009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. van der Ent, A.; Baker, A.J.M.; Reeves, R.D.; Simonnot, M.O.; Vaughan, J.; Morel, J.L.; Echevarria, G.; Fogliani, B.; Rongliang, Q.; Mulligan, D.R. Agromining: Farming for metals in the future? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 4773–4780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Reeves, R.D.; Baker, A.J.; Jaffré, T.; Erskine, P.D.; Echevarria, G.; van der Ent, A. A global database for plants that hyperaccumulate metal and metalloid trace elements. New Phytol. 2018, 218, 407–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Bhandari, G.; Prakash, O. Role of chelating compounds in biodegradation and bioremediation. In Bioremediation of Environmental Pollutants; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  30. Quartacci, M.F.; Irtelli, B.; Baker, A.J.M.; Navari-Izzo, F. The use of NTA and EDDS for enhanced phytoextraction of metals from a multiply contaminated soil by Brassica carinata. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 1920–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhao, S.; Jia, L.; Duo, L. The use of a biodegradable chelator for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals by Festuca arundinacea from municipal solid waste compost and associated heavy metal leaching. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dimitriou, I. Bioenergy and prospects for phytoremediation. In Sustainable Biofuels: An Ecological Assessment of Future Energy; Bhardwaj, A.K., Zenone, T., Chen, J., Eds.; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2013; Chapter 9; pp. 227–240. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gluhar, S.; Kaurin, A.; Lestan, D. Soil washing with biodegradable chelating agents and EDTA: Technological feasibility, remediation efficiency and environmental sustainability. Chemosphere 2020, 257, 127226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Robinson, B.H.; Mills, T.M.; Petit, D.; Fung, L.E.; Green, S.R.; Clothier, B.E. Natural and induced cadmium-accumulation in poplar and willow: Implications for phytoremediation. Plant Soil 2000, 227, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Famulari, S.; Witz, K. A user-friendly phytoremediation database: Creating the searchable database, the users, and the broader implications. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 737–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Frick, C.M.; Farrell, R.E.; Germida, J.J. PhytoPet: A Database of Plants That Play a Role in the Phytoremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons; Petroleum Technical Alliance of Canada (PTAC): Calgary, AB, Canada; University of Saskatoon, Department of Soil Science: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuzovkina, Y.A.; Quigley, M.F. Willows beyond wetlands: Uses of Salix L. species for environmental projects. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 162, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guidi, W.; Hasbroucq, S.; Kadri, H.; Pitre, F.E.; Labrecque, M. Potential of selected canadian plant species for phytoextraction of trace elements from selenium-rich soil contaminated by industrial activity. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 745–752. [Google Scholar]
  39. McIntyre, T. Phytoremediation of heavy metals from soils. In Phytoremediation; Tsao, D.T., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 97–124. [Google Scholar]
  40. Roy, S.; Labelle, S.; Mehta, P.; Mihoc, A.; Masson, C.; Leblanc, R.; Gallipeau, C.; Olsen, C.; Delisle, S.; Labrecque, M.; et al. Phytoremediation of heavy metal and PAH-contaminated brownfield sites. Plant Soil 2005, 272, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Courchesne, F.; Turmel, M.C.; Cloutier-Hurteau, B.; Constantineau, S.; Munro, L.; Labrecque, M. Phytoextraction of soil trace elements by willow during a phytoremediation trial in southern Québec, Canada. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bryson, G.M.; Barker, A.V. Phytoextraction of Zinc by indian mustard and tall fescue. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 315–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Agnello, A.C.; Huguenot, D.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Esposito, G. Citric acid- and Tween 80- assisted phytoremediation of a co-contaminated soil: Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) performance and remediation potential. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 9215–9226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Levy, D.B.; Redente, E.F.; Uphoff, G.D. Evaluating the phytotoxicity of Pb-Zn tailings to big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.). Soil Sci. 1999, 164, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ebbs, S.D.; Kochian, L.V. Phytoextraction of Zinc by oat (Avena sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 32, 802–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bert, V.; Seuntjens, P.; Dejonghe, W.; Lacherez, S.; Thi Thanh Thuy, H.; Vandecasteele, B. Phytoremediation as a management option for contaminated sediments in tidal marshes, flood control areas and dredged sediment landfill sites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2009, 16, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Best, E.P.H.; Smith, T.; Hagen, F.L. Candidate Herbaceous Plants for Phytoremediation of Energetics on Ranges; Technical Report ERDC TR-07-11; U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  48. Padmavathiamma, P.K.; Li, L.Y. Phytoremediation of metal-contaminated soil in temperate humid regions of British Columbia. Can. Int. J. Phytorem. 2009, 11, 575–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mugica-Alvarez, V.; Cortés-Jiménez, V.; Vaca-Mier, M.; Domínguez-Soria, V. Phytoremediation of mine tailings using Lolium multiflorum. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015, 6, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Balsamo, R.A.; Kelly, W.J.; Satrio, J.A.; Ruiz-Felix, M.N.; Fetterman, M.; Wynn, R.; Hagel, K. Utilization of grasses for potential biofuel production and phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. Int. J. Phytoremediat 2015, 17, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Padmavathiamma, P.K.; Li, L.Y. Phytoremediation and its effect on the mobility of metals in soil: A fractionation study. Land Contam. Reclam. 2009, 17, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Korzeniowska, J.; Stanislawska-Glubiak, E. Phytoremediation potential of Miscanthus × giganteus and Spartina pectinata in soil contaminated with heavy metals. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 11648–11657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Redondo-Gómez, S. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in Spartina. Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Courchesne, F.; Turmel, M.C.; Cloutier-Hurteau, B.; Tremblay, G.; Munro, L.; Masse, J.; Labrecque, M. Soil trace element changes during a phytoremediation trial with willows in southern Québec, Canada. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 632–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Guidi Nissim, W.; Palm, E.; Mancuso, S.; Azzarello, E. Trace element phytoextraction from contaminated soil: A case study under Mediterranean climate. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9114–9131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. King, R.F.; Royle, A.; Putwain, P.D.; Dickinson, N.M. Changing contaminant mobility in a dredged canal sediment during a three-year phytoremediation trial. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 143, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. García, G.; Zanuzzi, A.L.; Faz, Á. Evaluation of heavy metal availability prior to an in situ soil phytoremediation program. Biodegradation 2005, 16, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Meers, E.; Vandecasteele, B.; Ruttens, A.; Vangronsveld, J.; Tack, F.M.G. Potential of five willow species (Salix spp.) for phytoextraction of heavy metals. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 60, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chekol, T.; Vough, L.R. A study of the use of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) for the phytoremediation of organic contaminants in soil. Remediat. J. 2001, 11, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rizzi, L.; Petruzelli, G.; Poggio, G.; Vinga Guidi, G. Soil physical changes and plant availability of Zn and Pb in a treatability test of phytostabilization. Chemosphere 2004, 57, 1039–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. De Souza Freitas, E.V.; do Nascimento, C.W.A. The use of NTA for lead phytoextraction from soil from a battery recycling site. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 171, 833–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhao, S.; Jia, L.; Duo, L. Combining nitrilotriacetic acid and permeable barriers for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals from municipal solid waste compost by and reduced metal leaching. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yip, T.C.M.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Lo, I.M.C. Interactions of chelating agents with Pb-goethite at the solid-liquid interface: Pb extraction and re-adsorption. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Desjardins, D.; Brereton, N.J.B.; Marchand, L.; Brisson, J.; Pitre, F.E.; Labrecque, M. Complementarity of three distinctive phytoremediation crops for multiple-trace element contaminated soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 1428–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Guidi Nissim, W.; Pitre, F.E.; Teodorescu, T.I.; Labrecque, M. Long-term biomass productivity of willow bioenergy plantations maintained in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 56, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Serapiglia, M.J.; Cameron, K.D.; Stipanovic, A.J.; Abrahamson, L.P.; Volk, T.A.; Smart, L.B. Yield and woody biomass traits of novel shrub willow hybrids at two contrasting sites. BioEnergy Res. 2013, 6, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Tang, Y.T.; Deng, T.H.B.; Wu, Q.H.; Wang, S.Z.; Qiu, R.L.; Wei, Z.B.; Guo, X.F.; Wu, Q.T.; Lei, M.; Chen, T.B.; et al. Designing Cropping Systems for Metal-Contaminated Sites: A Review. Pedosphere 2012, 22, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Isbell, F.; Reich, P.B.; Tilman, D.; Hobbie, S.E.; Polasky, S.; Binder, S. Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 11911–11916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Zhan, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, T.; Yu, H.; Zhang, X.; Huang, H. Effects of NTA on Pb phytostabilization efficiency of Athyrium wardii (Hook.) grown in a Pb-contaminated soil. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 3576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhao, L.; Li, T.X.; Yu, H.Y.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zheng, Z.C. Effects of [S,S]-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid and nitrilotriacetic acid on the efficiency of Pb phytostabilization by Athyrium wardii (Hook.) grown in Pb-contaminated soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zhivotovsky, O.P.; Kuzovkina, Y.A.; Schulthess, C.P.; Morris, T.; Pettinelli, D. Lead uptake and translocation by willows in pot and field experiments. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2011, 13, 731–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Hafeez, B.; Khanif, Y.M.; Saleem, M. Role of Zinc in Plant Nutrition—A Review. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2013, 3, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yoon, J.; Cao, X.; Zhou, Q.; Ma, L.Q. Accumulation of Pb, Cu, and Zn in native plants growing on a contaminated Florida site. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 368, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, Y.; Huang, H.; Yu, H.; Zhan, J.; Daihua, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, T. The changes of rhizosphere characteristics contributed to enhanced Pb accumulation in Athyrium wardii (Hook.) Makino after nitrilotriacetic acid application. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 6184–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chaney, R.L. Zinc phytotoxicity. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Zinc in Soils and Plants, Perth, Australia, 27–28 September 1993; Robson, A.D., Ed.; Kluwer Academic: London, UK, 1993; pp. 135–149. [Google Scholar]
  77. Kabata-Pendias, A. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  78. Madejón, P.; Murillo, J.M.; Marañon, T.; Cabrera, F.; Lopez, R. Bioaccumulation of As, Cd, Cu, Fe and Pb in wild grasses affected by the Aznalcollar mine spill (SW Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 290, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Conesa, H.M.; Evangelou, M.W.H.; Robinson, B.H.; Schulin, R. A critical view of current state of phytotechnologies to remediate soils: Still a promising tool? Sci. World J. 2012, 5, 173829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Chaney, R.L. Toxic element accumulation in soils and crops: Protecting soil fertility and agricultural food-chains. In Inorganic Contaminants in the Vadose Zone; BarYosef, B., Barrow, N.J., Goldshmid, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jiang, Y.; Lei, M.; Duan, L.; Longhurst, P. Integrating phytoremediation with biomass valorisation and critical element recovery: A UK contaminated land perspective. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015, 83, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Nissim, W.G.; Labrecque, M. Reclamation of urban brownfields through phytoremediation: Implications for building sustainable and resilient towns. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Futughe, A.E.; Purchase, D.; Jones, H. Phytoremediation using native plants. In Phytoremediation; Concepts and Strategies in Plant Sciences; Shmaefsky, B., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 285–327. [Google Scholar]
  84. Jacklin, D.M.; Brink, I.C.; Jacobs, S.M. Exploring the use of indigenous Western Cape plants as potential water and soil pollutant phytoremediators with a focus on green infrastructure. Water SA 2021, 47, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mosseler, A.; Major, J.E.; Labrecque, M. Growth and survival of seven native willow species on highly disturbed coal mine sites in eastern Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 2014, 44, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wilson, B.; Braithwaite, A.; Pyatt, B.F. An evaluation of procedures for the digestion of soils and vegetation from areas with metalliferous pollution. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2005, 87, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00167 g001 550
Figure 1. Establishment of tested species on Zn-contaminated soil without/with the addition of NTA as a chelating agent. (A) Aboveground yield. White bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil not treated with NTA; grey bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil treated with NTA. Values are means ± SE. There was no interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment; different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey HSD; n = 10 between plant species); asterisks indicate a significant effect of NTA treatment (Student’s t-test; n = 5). (B) Growth and physiological parameters of Salix purpurea and Salix miyabeana. Plant height (cm), shoot number, and chlorophyll content (µg cm−2) were recorded at the end of the experiment for the two tested willow species. For all parameters, there was no interaction between the two factors ‘plant species’ × ‘soil treatment; the ‘plant species’ factor, but not ‘NTA treatment’, affected height, shoot number, and chlorophyll content. Asterisks indicate significant differences between species (Student’s t-test, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 for height, shoot number, and chlorophyll content, respectively; n = 10). Values are means ± SE, ns = non-significant.
Figure 1. Establishment of tested species on Zn-contaminated soil without/with the addition of NTA as a chelating agent. (A) Aboveground yield. White bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil not treated with NTA; grey bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil treated with NTA. Values are means ± SE. There was no interaction between the two factors plant species × soil treatment; different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey HSD; n = 10 between plant species); asterisks indicate a significant effect of NTA treatment (Student’s t-test; n = 5). (B) Growth and physiological parameters of Salix purpurea and Salix miyabeana. Plant height (cm), shoot number, and chlorophyll content (µg cm−2) were recorded at the end of the experiment for the two tested willow species. For all parameters, there was no interaction between the two factors ‘plant species’ × ‘soil treatment; the ‘plant species’ factor, but not ‘NTA treatment’, affected height, shoot number, and chlorophyll content. Asterisks indicate significant differences between species (Student’s t-test, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 for height, shoot number, and chlorophyll content, respectively; n = 10). Values are means ± SE, ns = non-significant.
Plants 12 00167 g001
Plants 12 00167 g002 550
Figure 2. Zn in aboveground tissues of tested species grown in Zn-contaminated soil without/with the addition of NTA as a chelating agent. (A) Zn concentration in mg.kg−1 and Bioconcentration Factor calculated as the ratio of shoot/soil concentration. (B) Zn shoot extraction yield in mg. m−2. White bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil not treated with NTA; grey bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil treated with NTA. There are interactions between the two factors plant species × soil treatment; values are means ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey HSD; n = 5).
Figure 2. Zn in aboveground tissues of tested species grown in Zn-contaminated soil without/with the addition of NTA as a chelating agent. (A) Zn concentration in mg.kg−1 and Bioconcentration Factor calculated as the ratio of shoot/soil concentration. (B) Zn shoot extraction yield in mg. m−2. White bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil not treated with NTA; grey bars represent plants growing in Zn-contaminated soil treated with NTA. There are interactions between the two factors plant species × soil treatment; values are means ± SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey HSD; n = 5).
Plants 12 00167 g002
Plants 12 00167 g003 550
Figure 3. Phytoremediation experiment concerning Zn-contaminated soil excavated from an area polluted by a freight train derailment and spill incident (A) Soil’s initial physical and chemical characteristics. Values are the mean ± SE (n = 5). Numbers in bold exceed Canadian criteria of trace element soil concentration for residential land use. CEC = cation exchange capacity; (B) Partial view of the open greenhouse experiment after 90 days of growth.
Figure 3. Phytoremediation experiment concerning Zn-contaminated soil excavated from an area polluted by a freight train derailment and spill incident (A) Soil’s initial physical and chemical characteristics. Values are the mean ± SE (n = 5). Numbers in bold exceed Canadian criteria of trace element soil concentration for residential land use. CEC = cation exchange capacity; (B) Partial view of the open greenhouse experiment after 90 days of growth.
Plants 12 00167 g003
Table
Table 1. Total and bioavailable Zn removal at the end of the experiment. Values are means ± SE (in parenthesis). Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey HSD, p < 0.001, n = 5). (A) Regarding Total Zn removal, there was no interaction between the two factors of plant species × soil treatment; (B) there was an interaction between the two factors—plant species × soil treatment—with respect to bioavailable Zn removal.
Table 1. Total and bioavailable Zn removal at the end of the experiment. Values are means ± SE (in parenthesis). Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey HSD, p < 0.001, n = 5). (A) Regarding Total Zn removal, there was no interaction between the two factors of plant species × soil treatment; (B) there was an interaction between the two factors—plant species × soil treatment—with respect to bioavailable Zn removal.
NTA TreatmentNon PlantedSalix purpureaSalix miyabeanaFestuca arundinaceaMedicago sativaCommercial Mix
ATotal Zn removal
(mg kg−1
of soil)		No0.98 (3.02)B33.24 (11.79)A27.40 (9.17)A48.62 (3.64)A53.98 (5.95)A36.55 (7.56)A
Yes10.38 (5.57)37.19 (4.64)46.55 (10.19)56.42 (4.47)56.03 (5.44)42.75 (7.21)
BBiodisponible Zn removal (mg kg−1
of soi)		No0.08 (0.32)BC0.60 (0.14)AB0.48 (0.05)AB0.96 (0.08)A0.60 (0.08)AB0.95 (0.05)A
Yes0.64 (0.19)AB−0.58 (0.21)CD−0.81 (0.24)D0.55 (0.13)AB0.10 (0.21)BC0.47 (0.08)AB
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Licinio, A.; Laur, J.; Pitre, F.E.; Labrecque, M. Willow and Herbaceous Species’ Phytoremediation Potential in Zn-Contaminated Farm Field Soil in Eastern Québec, Canada: A Greenhouse Feasibility Study. Plants 2023, 12, 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010167

AMA Style

Licinio A, Laur J, Pitre FE, Labrecque M. Willow and Herbaceous Species’ Phytoremediation Potential in Zn-Contaminated Farm Field Soil in Eastern Québec, Canada: A Greenhouse Feasibility Study. Plants. 2023; 12(1):167. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Licinio, Alexandre, Joan Laur, Frederic E. Pitre, and Michel Labrecque. 2023. "Willow and Herbaceous Species’ Phytoremediation Potential in Zn-Contaminated Farm Field Soil in Eastern Québec, Canada: A Greenhouse Feasibility Study" Plants 12, no. 1: 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010167

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop