Advertisement

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, Volume 216, Issue 1–4, pp 59–72 | Cite as

Growth and Physiological Responses of Triticum aestivum and Deschampsia caespitosa Exposed to Petroleum Coke

  • Colin Nakata
  • Clara Qualizza
  • Mike MacKinnon
  • Sylvie RenaultEmail author
Article

Abstract

Over the past decades, the global production of petroleum coke, a by-product of the oil sand industry, has increased with the growing importance of oil sands as a source of fossil fuels. A greenhouse study using Triticum aestivum and Deschampsia caespitosa was conducted to assess the growth and physiological effects of coke on plants. The plants were grown in cokes with or without a cap of peat–mineral mix and were compared to plants grown in a peat–mineral mix (control). Our results indicate that the selected plants can survive in coke; however, stress symptoms such as reductions in transpiration (45–91%) and stomatal conductance rates (44–92%) in T. aestivum, biomass in T. aestivum (5–83%) and D. caespitosa (43–90%), photosynthetic pigments in T. aestivum (32–68%) and D. caespitosa (33–44%) and proline concentrations in D. caespitosa (77–97%) were observed. Furthermore, potentially phytotoxic concentrations of nickel (47–69 μg g−1 in D. caespitosa) and vanadium (9.3–18.3 μg g−1 in T. aestivum and 4–27.8 μg g−1 in D. caespitosa) were found in some tissues while molybdenum accumulated in D. caespitosa shoots at concentrations reported, in other studies, to cause molybdenosis in ruminants. These results suggest that the plants growing in coke could experience multiple stresses including water stress, nutrient deficiencies and/or Ni and V toxicity. Capping coke with peat–mineral mix limited the stress symptoms and could improve revegetation success of coke impoundment sites. This study provides baseline data for future long-term field studies essential for developing coke management guidelines.

Keywords

Petroleum coke Triticum aestivum Deschampsia caespitosa Plant stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Karen Kivinen, Carl Szczerski, Scott Green and Greg Morden for their technical assistance. We also would like to thank Wayne Tedder from Suncor Energy Inc. for providing petroleum coke and valuable input. Thanks to Dr. M. Sumner and the anonymous reviewers for providing critical reviews of the manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by Syncrude Canada Ltd., Suncor Energy Inc., Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Adriano, D. C. (1986). Trace elements in the terrestrial environment. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Ain-Lhout, F., Zunzunegui, M., Diaz Barradas, M. C., Tirado, R., Clavijo, A., & Garcia Novo, F. (2001). Comparison of proline accumulation in two Mediterranean shrubs subjected to natural and experimental water deficit. Plant and Soil, 230(2), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aller, A. J., Berna, J. L., del Nozal, M. J., & Deban, L. (1990). Effects of selected trace elements on plant growth. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 51(4), 447–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brennan, R. F., & Adcock, K. G. (2004). Incidence of boron toxicity in spring barley in southwestern Australia. J Plant Nutr, 27(3), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarkson, D. T., Eugénio, D., & Sara, A. (1999). Uptake and assimilation of sulphate by sulphur deficient Zea mays cells: the role of O-acetyl-l-serine in the interaction between nitrogen and sulphur assimilatory pathways. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 37(4), 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chatterjee, C., Sinha, P., & Dube, B. K. (2005). Biochemical changes, yield, and quality of Gram under boron stress. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 36(13–14), 1736–1771.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, K. H., Janke, L. C. G., Dureau, R., & Furimsky, E. (1996). Leachability of cokes from Syncrude stockpiles. Environmental Science and Engineering Magazine, 3, 50–53.Google Scholar
  8. Creelman, R. A., Mason, H. S., Bensen, R. J., Boyer, J. S., & Mullet, J. E. (1990). Water deficit and abscisic acid cause differential inhibition of shoot versus root growth in soybean seedlings. Plant Physiology, 92(1), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, B. H. (1976). Carotenoids. In T. W. Goodwin (Ed.), Chemistry and biochemistry of plant pigments (pp. 38–165). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Elmore, C. D., & McMichael, B. L. (1981). Proline accumulation by water and nitrogen stressed cotton. Crop Science, 21(2), 244–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernst, W. H. O. (1996). Bioavailability of heavy metals and decontamination of soils by plants. Applied Geochemistry, 11, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fargašová, A. (1998). Root growth inhibition, photosynthetic pigments production, and metal accumulation in Sinapis alba as the parameters for trace metals effect determination. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 61(6), 762–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson, W. S., Lewis, A. H., & Watson, S. J. (1943). The teart pastures of Somerset: I. The cause and cure of teartness. Journal of Agricultural Science, 33(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flexas, J., & Medrano, H. (2002). Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Annals of Botany, 89(2), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forcella, F., Benech Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., & Ghersa, C. M. (2000). Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crop Research, 67(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, R., Stonefield, K. I., Suda, P., & Potter, J. W. (1982). Impact of nickel contamination on the production of vegetables on an organic soil, Ontario, Canada, 1980–1981. The Science of the Total Environment, 26(1), 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, R. L. (1998). Mining for oil. Scientific American, 278, 84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass, A. D. M. (2002). Nutrient absorption by plant roots: Regulation of uptake to match plant demand. In Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, & U. Kafkafi (Eds.), Plant roots, the hidden half (2nd ed., pp. 571–586). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  19. Guller, L., & Krucká, M. (1993). Ultrastructure of grape-vine (Vitis vinifera) chloroplasts under Mg- and Fe-deficiencies. Photosynthetica, 29(3), 417–425.Google Scholar
  20. Hendershot, W. H., Lalande, H., & Duquette, M. (1993). Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In M. R. Carter (Ed.), Soil sampling and methods of analysis (pp. 141–145). Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, D. L., & Otte, M. L. (2003). Conflicting processes in the wetland plant rhizosphere: metal retention or mobilization? Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 3, 91–104.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, J. B. (1998). Plant nutrition manual. New York: CRC.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, K. C., Lepp, N. W., & Obard, J. P. (1990). Other metals and metalloids. In B. J. Alloway (Ed.), Heavy metals in soils (pp. 208–321). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, D. I., Adriano, D., Carlson, C. L. C., & Sajwan, K. S. (1990). Vanadium: Toxicity and accumulation by beans. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 49, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuja, A.L., Hutchinson, T.C. (1979). The use of native species in mine tailings revegetation. In Proceedings: Canadian Land Reclamation Association, fourth annual meeting, Regina, Sask., The Canadian Land Reclamation Association meeting, Regina, Canada, pp. 207–221.Google Scholar
  26. Kukier, U., & Chaney, R. L. (2001). Amelioration of nickel phytotoxicity in muck and mineral soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30(6), 1949–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawlor, D. W. (1979). Effects of water and heat stress on carbon metabolism of plants with C3 and C4 photosynthesis. In H. Mussell & R. E. Staples (Eds.), Stress physiology of crop plants (pp. 303–326). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Laza, R. C., Bergman, B., & Vergara, B. S. (1993). Cultivar differences in growth and chloroplast ultrastructure in rice as affected by nitrogen. Journal of Experimental Botany, 44(11), 1643–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, K., & Luan, S. (1998). Voltage-dependent K+ channels as targets of osmosensing in guard cells. The Plant Cell, 10(11), 1957–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKinney, G. (1941). Absorption of light by chlorophyll solutions. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 144(2), 315–323.Google Scholar
  31. Maliszewska-Kordybach, B., & Smreczak, B. (2003). Habitat function of agricultural soils as affected by heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contamination. Environment International, 28(8), 719–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGrath, S. P., & Smith, S. (1990). Chromium and Nickel. In B. J. Alloway (Ed.), Heavy metals in soils (pp. 125–150). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Nable, R. O., Bañuelos, G. S., & Paull, J. G. (1997). Boron toxicity. Plant and Soil, 193(1–2), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson, D. L., & Cox, M. M. (2000). Lehninger principles of biochemistry (3rd ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  35. Neunhäuserer, C., Berreck, M., & Insam, H. (2001). Remediation of soils contaminated with molybdenum using soil amendments and phytoremediation. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 128(1–2), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raven, P. H., Evert, R. F., & Eichhorn, S. E. (1999). Biology of plants (6th ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  37. Renault, S., MacKinnon, M., & Qualizza, C. (2003). Barley, a potential species for initial reclamation of saline composite tailings of oil sands. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32(6), 2245–2253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards, J. E. (1993). Chemical characterization of plant tissue. In M. R. Carter (Ed.), Soil sampling and methods of analysis (pp. 115–139). Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  39. Rodenkirchen, H., & Roberts, B. A. (1993). Soils and plant nutrition on a serpentinized ridge in South Germany. II. Foliage macro-nutrient and heavy metal concentrations. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde, 156(5), 411–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheppard, S. C., & Evenden, W. G. (1995). Systematic identification of analytical indicators to measure soil load on plants for safety assessment purposes. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 59(2–4), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh, B. B. (1971). Effect of vanadium on the growth, yield and chemical composition of maize (Zea mays). Plant and Soil, 34(1), 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sofo, A., Dichio, B., Xiloyannis, C., & Masia, A. (2004). Lipoxygenase activity and proline accumulation in leaves and roots of olive trees in response to drought stress. Physiologia Plantarum, 121(1), 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Squires, A.J. (2005). Ecotoxicological assessment of using coke in aquatic reclamation strategies at the Alberta oil sands. MSc thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, C. B. (1996). Proline and water deficit: Ups, downs, ins, and outs. The Plant Cell, 8(8), 1221–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uhart, S. A., & Andrade, F. H. (1995). Nitrogen deficiency in maize: II. Carbon–nitrogen interaction effects on kernel number and grain yield. Crop Science, 35(5), 1384–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. United Nations. (2006). Petroleum coke. Available via UNdata Energy Statistics Database. http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=EDATA&f=cmID:OG;trID:0924. Accessed 13 Jan 2009.
  47. USEPA. (2006). Data quality assessment: Statistical methods for practitioners. Washington, DC: USEPA.Google Scholar
  48. Woolhouse, H. W., et al. (1983). Toxicity and tolerance in the responses of plants to metals. In Lange (Ed.), Encyclopedia of plant physiology. Vol12. Physiological plant ecology III (pp. 245–300). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Yang, X., Baligar, V. C., Martens, D. C., & Clark, R. B. (1996). Plant tolerance to nickel toxicity: I. Influx, transport, and accumulation of nickel in four species. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 19(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, H., Zhao, F., Sun, B., Davison, W., & Mcgrath, S. P. (2001). A new method to measure effective soil solution concentration predicts copper availability to plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 2602–2607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Nakata
    • 1
  • Clara Qualizza
    • 2
  • Mike MacKinnon
    • 3
  • Sylvie Renault
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Environmental CenterSyncrude Canada Ltd.Fort McMurrayCanada
  3. 3.Edmonton Research CenterSyncrude Canada Ltd.EdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations