Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 87, Issue 4, pp 755–766 | Cite as

Clonal variation in growth, arsenic and heavy metal uptakes of hybrid Eucalyptus clones in a Mediterranean environment

  • Giovanni Mughini
  • Francesco Alianiello
  • Anna Benedetti
  • Lapo Mughini Gras
  • Maria A. Gras
  • Luca Salvati
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Variation in growth, arsenic and heavy metal uptakes by aboveground tissues (leaves, stems and branches) of 13 hybrid Eucalyptus clones selected for biomass production in a Mediterranean environment (E. camaldulensis × E. viminalis; E. camaldulesis × E. grandis; E. camaldulensis × E. globulus subsp. bicostata) was investigated on agricultural soils field-contaminated with arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chrome (Cr), lead (Pb), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) in an ex situ nursery experiment in central Italy. Large variation in growth and contaminant uptake amongst the tested clones was observed. All plants survived and 12 clones grew better than the control (E. camaldulensis). All clones accumulated the contaminants to which they were exposed: As, Cu, Pb and Zn concentrations were significantly higher in leaves than in stems and branches, supporting the potential for phytoremediation of these contaminants by Eucalyptus short rotation woody crops (SRWC). Significant positive correlations between the average contents of Cd–Pb, Cd–Cu, Cd–Zn, Pb–Cu, Pb–Zn and Cu–Zn in the aboveground tissues were detected. Clones revealed better phytoextraction performance than that of the control. Four promising clones for biomass production and phytoremediation were identified for prospective use in SRWC on contaminated soils in Mediterranean environments.

Keywords

Soil phytoremediation Eucalyptus Trace element Mediterranean environment Central Italy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Prof. G. Tanelli (Florence University), Dr. L. Agati (ARPA Toscana) and Dr. G. Meloni (Nuova Solmine) for their collaboration in supplying the contaminated soil, and to Dr. M. Micozzi for the helpful proofreading of the manuscript. Thanks are also extended to Dr. R. Aromolo and Dr. M.G. Mascia for supporting chemical analyses, and to Mr. M. Giagnoli, Mr. A. Pedemonti, Mr. M. Riccardi and Mr. C. Emery for supporting data collection.

References

  1. Achene L, Ferretti E, Lucentini L, Pettine P, Veschetti E, Ottaviani M (2010) Arsenic content in drinking-water supplies of an important volcanic aquifer in central Italy. J Toxicol Environ Chem 92:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agostini R (1953) Cenni storici sulla introduzione degli eucalitti in Italia. Ital J For Mt Environ 8:117–122Google Scholar
  3. Alloway BJ (1995) Heavy metals in soils. Blackie Academic and Professional, GlasgowCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Assareh MH, Shariat A, Ghamari-Zare A (2008) Seedling response of three Eucalyptus species to copper and zinc toxic concentrations. Casp J Environ Sci 6:97–103Google Scholar
  5. Bella S, Lo Verde G (2002) Presenza nell’Italia continentale e in Sicilia di Ophelimus prope eucalypti (Gahan) e Aprostocetus sr, galligeni degli eucalipti (Hymenoptera Eulophidae). Naturalista Sicil 26:191–197Google Scholar
  6. Benvenuti MG, Benvenuti M, Castagliola P, Tanelli G (2009) Quaternary evolution of the Pecora River (southern Tuscany, Italy): paleohydrography and sediments provenance. Ital J Geosci 128:61–72Google Scholar
  7. Castagliola P, Benvenuti M, Chiarantini L, Bianchi S, Di Benedetto F, Paolieri M, Rossato L (2008) Impact of ancient metal smelting on arsenic pollution in the Pecora River Valley, Southern Tuscany, Italy. Appl Geochem 23:1241–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castiglione S, Todeschini V, Franchin C, Torrigiani P, Gastaldi D, Cicatelli A, Rinaudo C, Berta G, Biondi S, Lingua G (2009) Clonal differences in survival capacity, copper and zinc accumulation, and correlation with leaf polyamine levels in poplar: a large-scale field trial on heavily polluted soil. Environ Pollut 157:2108–2117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng S (2003) Heavy metals in plants and phytoremediation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickinson NM, Turner AP, Watmough SA, Lepp NW (1992) Acclimation of trees to pollution stress: cellular metal tolerance traits. Ann Bot 70:569–572Google Scholar
  11. Ding A, Cheng L, Liu P, Carpenter PJ, Teng YP (2007) Plant response to metal contamination at an oil shale tailing site in maoming, South China. Ground Water Monit Remediat 27:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. French CJ, Dickinson NM, Putwain PD (2006) Woody biomass phytoremediation of contaminated brownfield land. Environ Pollut 141:387–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gemignani G (1968) Preliminary observation on the Australian origins of Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Committee on the Coordination of Mediterranean Forestry Research, Third Session. Report No FO-SCM/FR/68/8A. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  14. GLOBSI - Gruppo di Lavoro Obiettivo Bonifica Siti Inquinati (2004) Bonifica dei siti inquinati nella programmazione dei fondi strutturali 2000–2006: analisi delle problematiche, valutazioni e suggerimenti. Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare e Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant CD, Campbell CJ, Charnock NR (2002) Selection of species suitable for derelict mine site rehabilitation in New South Wales, Australia. Water Air Soil Poll 139:215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartley A (1977) The establishment of Eucalyptus tereticornis on tailings from the Bougainville copper mine, Papua-New-Guinea. Commonw Forest Rev 56:239–245Google Scholar
  17. ISPRA-SINANET—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Sistema Informativo Nazionale Ambientale (2009) Siti contaminati WGS-84. http://www.mais.sinanet.ispraambiente.it/ost/. Accessed 10 Sept 2010
  18. King DJ, Doronila AI, Feenstra C, Baker AJ, Woodrow IE (2008) Phytostabilisation of arsenical gold mine tailings using four Eucalyptus species: growth, arsenic uptake and availability after 5 years. Sci Total Environ 406:35–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lacaze JF (1970) Study on the ecological adaptation of Eucalyptus. Committee on the Coordination of Mediterranean Forestry Research, Fourth Session. Report No FO:SCMI/FR 70/2/10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Madruga MJ, Brogueira A, Alberto G, Cardoso F (2001) 226Ra bioavailability to plants at the Urgeiriça uranium mill tailings site. J Environ Radioact 54:175–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meharg AA (2003) Variation in arsenic accumulation–hyperaccumulation in ferns and their allies. New Phytol 157:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melo RF, Dias LE, Mello JWV, de Oliveira JA (2010) Behavior of Eucaluptus grandis and E. cloeziana seedlings grown in arsenic-contaminated soil. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo 34:985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mughini G (1991) Comportamento di alcune specie di eucalitto in tre prove in Italia meridionale. Cellul Carta 42:2–7Google Scholar
  24. Mughini G, Facciotto G, Sperandi G, Confalonieri P, Gras MA, Giorcelli A, Allegro G (1996) Ricerche sulla selvicoltura a breve rotazione a scopo energetico. Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica—Centro di Ricerca Ambiente e Materiali, MilanGoogle Scholar
  25. Mughini G, Gras MA, Facciotto G (2007) Eucalyptus clones selection in central-south Italy for biomass production. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth European biomass conference and exhibition, Berlin, 7–11 May 2007, p 3Google Scholar
  26. Pigna M, Cozzolino V, Violante A, Meharg AA (2009) Influence of phosphate on the arsenic uptake by wheat (Triticum durum L.) irrigated with arsenic solutions at three different concentrations. Water Air Soil Pollut 197:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pigna M, Cozzolino V, Giandonato Caporale A, Mora ML, Di Meo V, Jara AA, Violante A (2010) Effects of phosphorus fertilization on arsenic uptake by wheat grown in polluted soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 10:428–442Google Scholar
  28. Preziosi E, Giuliano G, Vivona R (2010) Natural background levels and threshold values derivation for naturally As, V and F rich groundwater bodies: a methodological case study in Central Italy. Environ Earth Sci 61:885–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pulford ID, Watson C (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees: a review. Environ Int 29:529–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pulford ID, Riddell-Black D, Stewart C (2002) Heavy metal uptake by willow clones from sewage sludge-teated soil: the potential for phytoremediation. Int J Phytorem 4:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Purdy JJ, Smart LB (2008) Hydroponic screening of shrub willow (Salix spp.) for arsenic tolerance and uptake. Int J Phytorem 10:515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rockwood DL, Alker GR (2000) Phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated groundwater using cottonwood trees. University of Florida, GainevilleGoogle Scholar
  33. Rockwood DL, Cardellino R, Alker G, Lin C, Brown N, Spriggs T, Tsangaris S, Isebrands J, Hall R, Lange R, Nwokike B (2003) Fast-growing trees for heavy metal and chlorinated solvent phytoremediation. In: Magar VS, Kelley ME (eds) 7th international in situ and on site bioremediation symposium. Battelle Press, Columbus, 2–5 Jun 2003, p F-12 Google Scholar
  34. Rockwood DL, Naidu CV, Carter DR, Rahmani M, Spriggs TA, Lin C, Alker GR, Isebrands JG, Segrestet SA (2004) Short-rotation woody crops and phytoremediation: opportunities for agroforestry? Agroforest Syst 61:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saliba R, Gauthier H, Gauthier R, Petit-Ramel M (2002) The use of Eucalyptus barks for the adsorption of heavy metal ions and dyes. Adsorpt Sci Technol 20:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanelli G, Benvenuti M, Costagliela P, Mascaro I, Lascialfari S, Rossato L (2003) Studio della dispersione dell’arsenico nella Piana di Scarlino (GR). Florence University, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  37. Tlustoš P, Ji Száková, Vysloužilová M, Pavlíková D, Weger J, Javorská H (2007) Variation in the uptake of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc by different species of willows Salix spp. grown in contaminated soils. Cent Eur J Chem Biol 2:254–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tossell RW, Binard K, Rafferty MT (2000) Uptake of arsenic by tamarisk and eucalyptus under saline conditions. In: Wickramanayake GB, Gavaskar AR, Meman BC, Magar VC (eds) Bioremediation and Phyroremediarion of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, pp 485–492Google Scholar
  39. Violante P (2000) Metodi ufficiali di analisi chimica del suolo. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Rome. Gazzetta Ufficiale 248/21-10-99:5–222Google Scholar
  40. Welch AH, Lico MS, Hughes JL (1988) Arsenic in ground water of the Western United States. Ground Water 26:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zalesny RS, Bauer EO (2007) Evaluation of Populus and Salix continously irrigated with landfill leachate I. Genotype-specific elemental phytoremediation. Int J Phytorem 9:281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zedda L, Cogoni A, Flore F, Brundu G (2010) Impacts of alien plants and man-made disturbance on soil-growing bryophyte and lichen diversity in coastal areas of Sardinia (Italy). Plant Biosystems 144:547–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Mughini
    • 1
  • Francesco Alianiello
    • 2
  • Anna Benedetti
    • 2
  • Lapo Mughini Gras
    • 3
  • Maria A. Gras
    • 1
  • Luca Salvati
    • 2
  1. 1.Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Unità di Ricerca per le Produzioni Legnose Fuori Foresta (CRA-PLF)RomeItaly
  2. 2.Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Centro di Ricerca per lo Studio delle Relazioni tra Pianta e Suolo (CRA-RPS)RomeItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria e Sicurezza Alimentare, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS)Reparto di Epidemiologia ed Analisi del RischioRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations