Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 174–183 | Cite as

Alleviation effects of magnesium on copper toxicity and accumulation in grapevine roots evaluated with biotic ligand models

  • Bo-Ching Chen
  • Pei-Chi Ho
  • Kai-Wei Juang
Article

Abstract

Copper toxicity and accumulation in plants are affected by physicochemical characteristics of soil solutions such as the concentrations of coexistent cations (e.g., Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, and H+). The biotic ligand model (BLM) approach has been proposed to predict metal phyto-toxicity and -accumulation by taking into account the effects of coexistent cations, given the assumption of the partition equilibrium of metal ions between soil solution and solid phase. The alleviation effects of Mg on Cu toxicity and accumulation in grapevine roots were the main concerns in this study and were investigated by using a hydroponic experiment of grapevine cuttings. The BLM approach, which incorporated competition of Mg2+ with Cu2+ to occupy the biotic ligands on root surfaces, was developed to predict Cu rhizotoxicity and accumulation by grapevine roots. In the results, the effective activity of Cu, {Cu 2+}, resulting in a 50 % reduction of root elongation (EA 50), linearly increased with increments of Mg activity, {Mg 2+}. In addition, the Cu concentration in root, Cu root , was retarded by an increase of {Mg 2+}. The linear model was significantly fitted to the relationship between {Cu 2+}/Cu root and {Mg 2+}. According to the concept of BLM, the present results revealed that the amelioration effects of Mg on Cu toxicity and accumulation in roots could arise from competition between Mg2+ and Cu2+ on the binding sites (i.e., the biotic ligands). Then, the developed Cu-BLMs incorporating the Mg2+ competition effectiveness were validated provide accurate predictions of Cu toxicity and accumulation in grapevine roots. To our knowledge this is the first report of the successful development of BLMs for a woody plant. This BLM approach shows promise of being widely applicable for various terrestrial plants.

Keywords

Terrestrial biotic ligand model (t-BLM) Rhizotoxicity Bioavailability Competition absorption Kyoho grapevine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored by the National Science Council, Taiwan under Grant Nos. NSC 98-2313-B-451-004-MY3 and NSC 97-2313-B-415-009-MY3. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for providing many constructive comments.

References

  1. Antunes PMC, Berkelaar EJ, Boyle D, Hale BA (2006) The biotic ligand model for plants and metals: technical challenges for field application. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:875–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antunes PMC, Scornaienchi ML, Roshon HD (2012) Copper toxicity to Lemna minor modeled using humic acid as a surrogate for the plant root. Chemosphere 88:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell PF, Chaney RL, Angle JS (1991) Free metal activity and total metal concentrations of micronutrient availability to barley Hordeum vulgare (L.) cv “Klages”. Plant Soil 130:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckley JA (1994) The bioavailability of copper in wastewater to Lemma minor with biological and electrochemical measures of complexation. Water Res 28:2457–2467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaignon V, Sanchez-Neira I, Jaillard B, Hinsinger P (2003) Copper bioavailability and extractability as related to chemical properties of contaminated soils from a vine-growing area. Environ Pollut 123:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng T, Allen HE (2001) Prediction of uptake of copper from solution by lettuce (Lactuca sativa Romance). Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2544–2551Google Scholar
  7. De Schamphelaere KAC, Janssen CR (2002) A biotic ligand model predicting acute copper toxicity for Daphnia magna: the effects of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and pH. Environ Sci Technol 36:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gustafsson JP (2007) Visual MINTEQ version 2.53. http://www.lwr.kth.se/English/OurSoftware/vminteq/
  9. Juang KW, Lee YI, Lai HY, Wang CH, Chen BC (2012a) Copper accumulation, translocation, and toxic effects in grapevine cuttings. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:1315–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Juang KW, Ho PC, Yu CH (2012b) Short-term effects of compost amendment on the fractionation of cadmium in soil and cadmium accumulation in rice plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:1696–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Komárek M, Vaněk A, Chrastný V, Száková J, Kubová K, Drahota P, Balík J (2009) Retention of copper originating from different fungicides in contrasting soil types. J Hazard Mater 166:1395–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kopittke PM, Blamey FPC, Asher CJ, Menzies NW (2010) Trace metal phytotoxicity in solution culture: a review. J Exp Bot 61:945–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kopittke PM, Kinraide TB, Wang P, Blamey FPC, Reichman SM, Menzies NW (2011) Alleviation of Cu and Pb rhizotoxicities in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as related to ion activities at root-cell plasma membrane surface. Environ Sci Technol 45:4966–4973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lai HY, Juang KW, Chen BC (2010) Copper concentrations in grapevines and vineyard soils in central Taiwan. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 56:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lock K, De Schamphelaers KAC, Because S, Criel P, Van Eeckhout H, Janssen CR (2007a) Development and validation of a terrestrial biotic ligand model predicting the effect of cobalt on root growth of barley (Hordeum vulgare). Environ Pollut 147:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lock K, Van Eeckhout H, De Schamphelaere KAC, Criel P, Janssen CR (2007b) Development of a biotic ligand model (BLM) predicting nickel toxicity to barley (Hordeum vulgare). Chemosphere 66:1346–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lock K, Criel P, De Schamphelaere KAC, Van Eeckhout H, Janssen CR (2007c) Influence of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and pH on copper toxicity to barley (Hordeum vulgare). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 68:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luo XS, Li LZ, Zhou DM (2008) Effect of cations on copper toxicity to wheat root: implications for the biotic ligand model. Chemosphere 73:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mertens J, Degryse F, Springael D, Smolders E (2007) Zinc toxicity to nitrification in soil and soilless culture can be predicted with the same biotic ligand model. Environ Sci Technol 41:2992–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mirlean N, Roisenberg A, Chies JO (2007) Metal contamination of vineyard soils in wet subtropics (Southern Brazil). Environ Pollut 149:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh RP, Agrawal M (2010) Variations in heavy metal accumulation, growth and yield of rice plants grown at different sewage sludge amendment rates. Ecotox Environ Saf 73:632–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stefanelli D, Fridman Y, Perry RL (2009) DigiRoot™: new software for root studies. Eur J Hortic Sci 74:169–174Google Scholar
  23. Tavakkoli E, Fatehi F, Rengasamy P, McDonald GK (2012) A comparison of hydroponic and soil-based screening methods to identify salt tolerance in the field in barley. J Exp Bot 63:3853–3868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thakali S, Allen HE, Di Toro DM, Ponizovsky AA, Rooney CP, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP (2006a) A terrestrial biotic ligand model. 1. Development and application to Cu and Ni toxicities to barley root elongation in soils. Environ Sci Technol 40:7085–7093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thakali S, Allen HE, Di Toro DM, Ponizovsky AA, Rooney CP, Zhao FJ, McGrath SP, Criel P, van Eeckhout H, Janssen CR, Oorts K, Smolders E (2006b) Terrestrial biotic ligand model. 2. Application to Ni and Cu toxicities to plants, invertebrates, and microbes in soil. Environ Sci Technol 40:7094–7100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Udovic M, Lestan D (2009) Pb, Zn and Cd mobility, availability and fractionation in aged soil remediated by EDTA leaching. Chemosphere 74:1367–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. USEPA (2007) Biotic ligand model: technical support document for its application to the evaluation of water quality criteria for copper. The Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Sprang P, Vangheluwe M, Van Hyfte A, Heijerick D, Vandenbroele M, Verdonck F (2007) European union risk assessment report: Copper, copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate, copper(I) oxide, copper(II) oxide, dicopper chloride trihydroxide. Voluntary risk assessment, Environmental effects. Chapter 3.2, Part 1. European Copper Institute, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Zwieten L, Rust J, Kingston T, Merrington G, Morris S (2004) Influence of copper fungicide residues on occurrence of earthworms in avocado orchard soils. Sci Total Environ 329:29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang X, Ma Y, Hua L, McLaughlin MJ (2009) Identification of hydroxyl copper toxicity to barley (Hordeum vulgare) root elongation in solution culture. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang P, Kinraide TB, Zhou DM, Kopittke PM, Peijnenburg WJGM (2011a) Plasma membrane surface potential: dual effects upon ion uptake and toxicity. Plant Physiol 155:808–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang P, Kopittke PM, De Schamphelaere KAC, Zhao FJ, Zhou DM, Lock K, Ma YB, Peijnenburg WJGM, McGrath SP (2011b) Evaluation of an electrostatic toxicity model for predicting Ni2+ toxicity to barley root elongation in hydroponic cultures and in soils. New Phytol 192:414–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang P, De Schamphelaere KAC, Kopittke M, Zhou DM, Peijnenburg WJGM, Lock K (2012a) Development of an electrostatic model predicting copper toxicity to plants. J Exp Bot 63:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang X, Hua L, Ma Y (2012b) A biotic ligand model predicting acute copper toxicity for barley (Hordeum vulgare): influence of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and pH. Chemosphere 89:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu Y (2007) Bioavailability and rhizotoxicity of trace metals to pea: development of a terrestrial biotic ligand model. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Zabłudowska E, Kowalska J, Jedynak Ł, Wojas S, Skłodowska A, Antosiewicz DM (2012) Search for a plant for phytoremediation—what can we learn from field and hydroponic studies. Chemosphere 77:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Post-Modern AgricultureMingDao UniversityPeetow, ChanghuaTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations