Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 87, Issue 1–4, pp 39–46 | Cite as

Sugarmill effluent effects on growth, photosynthetic pigments and nutrient uptake in wheat seedlings in aqueous vs. soil medium

  • A. Kaushik
  • Bala R. Kadyan
  • C. P. Kaushik
Article

Abstract

Germination, seedling growth, concentrations of photosynthetic pigments and nutrient uptake inTriticum vulgare L. (Var. W-H-147) were studied in response to sugarmill effluent application (10% concentration) in aqueous Vs. soil medium. The effluent rich in various nutrients showed particularly high concentration of sodium. Germination was not affected by the effluent treatment. Seedling growth was reduced significantly by the effluent in aqueous medium, but not in soil. The effluent treatment increased the concentrations of various pigments, however, the pigment ratios got changed in the aqueous medium only. The uptake of nitrogen, magnesium and carbon by the seedlings decreased while that of calcium, sodium and phosphorus increased in effluent treated plants, the changes being more marked in aqueous medium except for phosphorus. In the effluent treated plants, uptake of potassium and chloride increased in aqueous medium, hut decreased sharply in soil.

Keywords

Nitrogen Sodium Calcium Chloride Potassium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajmal, M., Khan, M. A., and Nomani, A. A.: 1984,Environ. Pollut. (Series A) 33, 97.Google Scholar
  2. Ajmal, M., and Khan, A. U.: 1985,Environ. Res. 38, 248.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, S. E., Grimshaw, H. M., and Rowland, A. P.: 1986, in Moore, P. W., and Chapman, S. B. (eds.),Chemical Analysis, in Methods in Plant Ecology, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, pp. 285–344.Google Scholar
  4. Amon, D. I.: 1949,Plant Physiol. 24, 1.Google Scholar
  5. Ballentine, R.: 1957,Methods Enzymol. 3, 984.Google Scholar
  6. Behera, B. K., and Mishra, B. N.: 1982,Environ. Res. 28, 10.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, L.: 1975,Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 13, 295.Google Scholar
  8. Fayez, M., and Shahin, R. R.: 1987,Z. Pflanzenemaehr Bodenkd. 150(4), 220.Google Scholar
  9. Kaushik, A.: 1990,Flora 184, 263.Google Scholar
  10. Lang, C. A.: 1958,Ann. Chem. 30, 1692.Google Scholar
  11. Marshall, C. E.: 1973, in Truog E. (ed.),Mineral Nutrition of Plants, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., N. Delhi, 57.Google Scholar
  12. Michael, P.: 1986,Ecological Methods for Field and Laboratory Investigation, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., N. Delhi, pp. 95–130.Google Scholar
  13. Overstreet, R., and Dean, L. A.: 1973, in Truog E. (ed.),Mineral Nutrition of Plants, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., N. Delhi, 79.Google Scholar
  14. Sahai, N., and Sahai, R.: 1988,J. Environ. Biol. 9(1), 45.Google Scholar
  15. Sinha, A., Gupta, S. R., and Rana, R. S.: 1986,Int. J. Biometeor. 28, 147.Google Scholar
  16. Strogonov, B. P., Kabanov, V. V, Shevyakova, N. I., Lapina, L. P., Kainizerko, E. M., Popov, B. A., Dostanova, R. K. H., and Prinkholko, L. S.: 1970,Structure and Function of Plant Cells in Saline Habitats. New Trends in the Study of Salt Tolerance, Israeli Program for Scientific Translations (English), Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  17. Sutton, A. L., Nelson, D. W., Mayrose, V. B., and Nye, J. C.: 1978,J. Environ. Qual 7(3), 325.Google Scholar
  18. Walkley, A., and Black, I. A.: 1934,Soil Sci. 37, 29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Kaushik
    • 1
  • Bala R. Kadyan
    • 1
  • C. P. Kaushik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiosciencesM.D. UniversityRohtakIndia

Personalised recommendations