Growth, Metabolism and Yield of Rice Cultivated in Soils Amended with Fly Ash and Cyanobacteria and Metal Loads in Plant Parts

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2016.01.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil amendment with fly ash (FA) and combined supplementation with N₂-fixing cyanobacteria masses as biofertilizer were done in field experiments with rice. Amendments with FA levels, 0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0 and 10.0 kg/m², caused increase in growth and yield of rice up to 8.0 kg/m², monitored with several parameters. Pigment contents and enzyme activities of leaves were enhanced by FA, with the maximum level of FA at 10.0 kg/m². Protein content of rice seeds was the highest in plants grown at FA level 4.0 kg/m². Basic soil properties, pH value, percentage of silt, percentage of clay, water-holding capacity, electrical conductivity, cation exchange capacity, and organic carbon content increased due to the FA amendment. Parallel supplementation of FA amended plots with 1.0 kg/m² N₂-fixing cyanobacteria mass caused further significant increments of the most soil properties, and rice growth and yield parameters. 1000-grain weight of rice plants grown at FA level 4.0 kg/m² along with cyanobacteria supplementation was the maximum. Cyanobacteria supplementation caused increase of important basic properties of soil including the total N-content. Estimations of elemental content in soils and plant parts (root and seed) were done by the atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Accumulations of K, P, Fe and several plant micronutrients (Mn, Ni, Co, Zn and Cu) and toxic elements (Pb, Cr and Cd) increased in soils and plant parts as a function of the FA gradation, but Na content remained almost unchanged in soils and seeds. Supplementation of cyanobacteria had ameliorating effect on toxic metal contents of soils and plant parts. The FA level 4.0 kg/m², with 1.0 kg/m² cyanobacteria mass supplementation, could be taken ideal, since there would be recharging of the soil with essential micronutrients as well as toxic chemicals in comparative lesser proportions, and cyanobacteria mass would cause lessening toxic metal loads with usual N₂-fixation.

Key words: soil property, cyanobacteria, fly ash, growth, heavy metal, rice, toxic element, yield

N. Padhy Rabindra, Nayak Nabakishore, R. Dash-Mohini Rajesh, Rath Shakti, K. Sahu Rajani. Growth, Metabolism and Yield of Rice Cultivated in Soils Amended with Fly Ash and Cyanobacteria and Metal Loads in Plant Parts[J]. Rice Science, 2016, 23(1): 22-32.

Figures/Tables 8

References 33

[1]	Beesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E, Clemente R, Lepp N, Dickinson N.2010. Mobility of arsenic, cadmium and zinc in a multi-element contaminated soil profile assessed by in-situ soil pore water sampling, column leaching and sequential extraction.Environ Pollut, 158(1): 155-160.
[2]	Carlson C L, Adriano D C.1993. Environmental impacts of coal combustion residues.J Environ Qual, 22: 227-247.
[3]	Cooperband L R.2000. Sustainable use of by-products in land management. In: Bartels J M, Dick W A. Land Application of Agricultural, Industrial and Municipal by-products. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, USA: American Society of Agronomy: 215-236.
[4]	Dash N P, Kumar A, Singh P K.2015 Cyanobacteria, pesticides and rice interaction.Biodivers Conserv, 24(4): 955-1005.
[5]	Dick W A, Hao Y L, Stehouwer R C, Bigham J M, Wolfe W E, Adriano D, Beeghly J H, Haefner R J.2000. Beneficial uses flue gas desulphurization by-products: Examples and case studies of land application. In: Bartels J M, Dick W A. Land Application of Agricultural, Industrial and Municipal by-products. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, USA: American Society of Agronomy: 505-536.
[6]	Haque M E.2013. Indian coal: Production and ways to increase coal supplies.Int J Sci Res Publ, 3: 1-3.
[7]	Harper D J, Fileman G F, May P V, Portmann J E.1989. The analysis of trace metals in marine and other samples. In: Aquatic Environment Protocols: Analytical Methods MAFF Direct Fish, Research Lowestoft, UK. 3: 1-38.
[8]	Jan F A, Ishaq M, Khan S, Shakirullah M, Asim S M, Ahmad I, Mabood F.2011. Bioaccumulation of metals in human blood in industrially contaminated area.J Environ Sci, 23: 2069-2077.
[9]	Kiran B, Thanasekaran K.2011. Metal tolerance of an indigenous cyanobacterial strain, Lyngbya putealis.Int Biodeter Biodegr, 65(8): 1128-1132.
[10]	Khan M R, Khan M W.1996. The effect of fly ash on plant growth and yield of tomato.Environ Pollut, 92(2): 105-111.
[11]	Korcak R F.1995. Utilization of coal combustion by-product in agriculture and horticulture. In: Karlen D L, Wright R J, Kemper W D. Agricultural Utilization of Urban and Industrial by-products. Madison, USA: ASA Special Publication: 107-130.
[12]	Marchner H.1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. New York: Academic Press: 1-260.
[13]	Martens D C, Schnappinger M G, Zelazny L W.1970. The plant availability of potassium in fly ash.Proc Soil Sci Soc Am, 34: 453-456.
[14]	Miller D M, Miller W P, Dudka S, Sumner M E.2000. Characterization of industrial by-products. In: Bartels J M, Dick W A. Land Application of Agricultural, Industrial and Municipal by-products. Madison, USA: Soil Science Society of America: 107-126.
[15]	Mishra M, Sahu R K, Padhy R N.2005a. Growth, yield, metabolism and elemental status of green gram (Phaseolus aureus) and til (Sesamum indicum) grown in soils amended with fly ash.Fresen Environ Bull, 14: 559-564.
[16]	Mishra M, Sahu R K, Sahu S K, Padhy R N.2005b. Effect of vermicomposted municipal solid-wastes on growth, yield and heavy metal contents of rice (Oryza sativa).Fresen Environ Bull, 14: 584-590.
[17]	Mishra M, Sahu R K, Padhy R N.2007. Growth, yield, metabolism and elemental status of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in fly ash amended soils.Ecotoxicol, 16: 271-278.
[18]	Nayak S, Prasanna R.2007. Soil pH and its role in cyanobacterial abundance and diversity in rice field soils.Appl Ecol Environ Res, 5: 103-113.
[19]	Padhy R N.1985. Agriculture and environment: Cyanobacteria employed as biofertilizers and waste disposers.Nature, 317: 475-476.
[20]	Parab N, Mishra S, Bhonde S R.2012. Prospects of bulk utilization of fly ash in agriculture for integrated nutrient management.Bull Nat Inst Ecol, 23: 31-46.
[21]	Parkinson J A, Allen S E.1975. A wet oxidation procedure suitable for the determination of N and mineral nutrients in biological materials.Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal, 6(1): 1-11.
[22]	Paudel Y P, Pradhan S, Pant B, Prasad B N.2012. Role of blue green algae in rice productivity.Agric Biol J North Amer, 3(8): 332-335.
[23]	Pluss A, Ferrel JR R A Y E.1991. Characterization of lead and other heavy metals in fly ash from municipal waste incinerators.Hazard Waste Hazard Matr, 8(4): 275-292.
[24]	Rai L C, Gour J P, Kumar H D.1981. Phycology and heavy metal pollution.Biol Rev, 56(2): 99-151.
[25]	Saadatnia H, Riahi H.2009. Cyanobacteria from paddy fields in Iran as a biofertilizer in rice plants.Plant Soil Environ, 55(5): 207-212.
[26]	Samy N T, Mishra M, Sahu R K, Padhy R N.2010. Growth, yield and metabolism of rice (Oryza sativa L.) during repeated applications of fly ash on soil.Advan Food Sci, 32(2): 110-117.
[27]	Schmidt S K, Reed S C, Nemergut D R, Grandy A S, Cleveland C C, Weintraub M N, Hill A W, Costello E K, Meyer A F, Neff J C, Martin A M.2008. The earliest stages of ecosystem succession in high-elevation (5000 metres above sea level), recently deglaciated soils.Proc Rolyal Soc, 275: 2793-2802.
[28]	Sen S, Kumar A.1995. NTPC’s experience in utilization of coal ash. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Fly Ash Management in the State of Orissa. Bhubaneswar, Orissa: 103-121.
[29]	Sim J T, Pierzynski G M.2000. Assessing the impacts of agricultural, municipal and industrial by-products on soil quality. In: Bartels J M, Dick W A. Land Application of Agricultural, Industrial and Municipal by-products. Madison, USA: Soil Science Society of America: 215-235.
[30]	Tripathi R D, Dwivedi S, Shukla M K, Mishra S, Srivastava S, Singh R, Rai U N, Gupta D K.2008. Role of blue green algae biofertilizer in ameliorating the nitrogen demand and fly ash stress to the growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants.Chemospher, 70: 1919-1929.
[31]	U S Environmental Protection Agency, Quality criteria for water.1976. U S Environmental EPA 440/9-76-023. EPA, Washington.Please check it.Rabindra: We checked it and corrected.
[32]	Warren C J, Dudas M J.1984. Weathering process in relation to leachate properties of alkaline fly ash.J Environ Qual, 13(4): 530-538.
[33]	Woitke M, Degenhardt B, Gade B, Gimmer H.2001. Content and internal distribution of heavy metals in roots of plants grown at alkaline pH on slag from municipal solid waste incineration.J Appl Bot, 75: 59-66.

Treatment	Shoot height (cm)		Leaf area (cm²)		Tiller number per plant		Plant dry weight (g)
Treatment	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C
T1	16.9 ± 0.9	19.2 ± 0.0	11.1 ± 1.1	13.6 ± 0.6	4.36 ± 0.1	5.14 ± 0.2	110	123
T2	19.9 ± 0.3	20.8 ± 0.2	10.0 ± 0.3	12.7 ± 0.9	4.67 ± 0.2	5.40 ± 0.3	136	140.8
T3	23.8 ± 0.4	24.9 ± 0.6	13.8 ± 0.4	15.5 ± 1.2	4.88 ± 0.3	5.70 ± 0.2	137.9	155.5
T4	22.8 ± 0.8	26.2 ± 0.8	13.9 ± 2.0	16.0 ± 0.8	4.70 ± 0.1	5.03 ± 0.2	151.3	176
T5	27.0 ± 0.8	30.9 ± 0.8	18.1 ± 1.9	22.0 ± 0.7	4.63 ± 0.2	5.90 ± 0.2	190	202.4
T6	24.9 ± 0.7	28.1 ± 0.8	13.8 ± 2.8	28.1 ± 1.2	4.73 ± 0.1	4.73 ± 0.0	204	241
T7	26.4 ± 0.8	31.1 ± 0.7	16.8 ± 0.3	28.6 ± 2.4	4.97 ± 0.2	4.06 ± 0.2	182	230.6
r-value	0.971 ^a		#######################		0.353		0.962 ^a
Significance	0.002**		0.030*		0.077		0.008**

Treatment	Shoot height (cm)		Leaf area (cm²)		Tiller number per plant		Plant dry weight (g)
Treatment	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C
T1	16.9 ± 0.9	19.2 ± 0.0	11.1 ± 1.1	13.6 ± 0.6	4.36 ± 0.1	5.14 ± 0.2	110	123
T2	19.9 ± 0.3	20.8 ± 0.2	10.0 ± 0.3	12.7 ± 0.9	4.67 ± 0.2	5.40 ± 0.3	136	140.8
T3	23.8 ± 0.4	24.9 ± 0.6	13.8 ± 0.4	15.5 ± 1.2	4.88 ± 0.3	5.70 ± 0.2	137.9	155.5
T4	22.8 ± 0.8	26.2 ± 0.8	13.9 ± 2.0	16.0 ± 0.8	4.70 ± 0.1	5.03 ± 0.2	151.3	176
T5	27.0 ± 0.8	30.9 ± 0.8	18.1 ± 1.9	22.0 ± 0.7	4.63 ± 0.2	5.90 ± 0.2	190	202.4
T6	24.9 ± 0.7	28.1 ± 0.8	13.8 ± 2.8	28.1 ± 1.2	4.73 ± 0.1	4.73 ± 0.0	204	241
T7	26.4 ± 0.8	31.1 ± 0.7	16.8 ± 0.3	28.6 ± 2.4	4.97 ± 0.2	4.06 ± 0.2	182	230.6
r-value	0.971 ^a		#######################		0.353		0.962 ^a
Significance	0.002**		0.030*		0.077		0.008**

Treatment	Length of panicle (cm)		No. of seeds per panicle		Grain yield of 100 plants (g)		1000-grain weight (g)
Treatment	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C
T1	13.1 ± 0.3	14.5 ± 0.3	60.3 ± 3.1	64.1 ± 2.1	262.2	265.3	19.69	20.16
T2	14.0 ± 0.5	13.9 ± 0.4	62.0 ± 2.6	66.9 ± 3.6	269.8	272	21.12	20.7
T3	16.0 ± 0.3	15.9 ± 0.6	70.8 ± 4.4	78.0 ± 9.5	285.3	312.4	21.95	22.38
T4	16.9 ± 0.5	18.3 ± 0.9	75.5 ± 5.2	85.1 ± 6.1	310.2	342.5	23.42	23.5
T5	18.7 ± 0.4	21.9 ± 1.0	84.1 ± 4.5	91.3 ± 3.1	357.5	379	23.95	24.15
T6	20.2 ± 2.0	24.8 ± 0.8	85.3 ± 6.3	89.5 ± 3.3	411.8	420.5	23.88	24.3
T7	20.0 ± 0.6	20.7 ± 1.7	81.3 ± 4.1	83.0 ± 5.0	491	495.7	24.25	24.4
r-value	0.938		0.969		0.989 ^a		0.985 ^a
Significance	0.053		0.001**		0.024*		0.155

Treatment	Length of panicle (cm)		No. of seeds per panicle		Grain yield of 100 plants (g)		1000-grain weight (g)
Treatment	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C
T1	13.1 ± 0.3	14.5 ± 0.3	60.3 ± 3.1	64.1 ± 2.1	262.2	265.3	19.69	20.16
T2	14.0 ± 0.5	13.9 ± 0.4	62.0 ± 2.6	66.9 ± 3.6	269.8	272	21.12	20.7
T3	16.0 ± 0.3	15.9 ± 0.6	70.8 ± 4.4	78.0 ± 9.5	285.3	312.4	21.95	22.38
T4	16.9 ± 0.5	18.3 ± 0.9	75.5 ± 5.2	85.1 ± 6.1	310.2	342.5	23.42	23.5
T5	18.7 ± 0.4	21.9 ± 1.0	84.1 ± 4.5	91.3 ± 3.1	357.5	379	23.95	24.15
T6	20.2 ± 2.0	24.8 ± 0.8	85.3 ± 6.3	89.5 ± 3.3	411.8	420.5	23.88	24.3
T7	20.0 ± 0.6	20.7 ± 1.7	81.3 ± 4.1	83.0 ± 5.0	491	495.7	24.25	24.4
r-value	0.938		0.969		0.989 ^a		0.985 ^a
Significance	0.053		0.001**		0.024*		0.155

Treatment	Chlorophyll a		Chlorophyll b		Carotene		Catalase		Peroxidase activity [mmol/(L∙g)]		Protein/carbo-
	(mg/g)		(mg/g)		(mg/g)		[mmol/(L∙g)]		Peroxidase activity [mmol/(L∙g)]		hydrate ratio
	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA +C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C	FA	FA+C
T1	1.03 ± 0.02	1.05 ± 0.02	0.59 ± 0.01	0.62 ± 0.02	3.10 ± 0.01	3.02 ± 0.16	2.49 ± 0.48	3.33 ± 0.47	6.26 ± 0.45	7.02 ± 0.63	0.15	0.18
T2	1.19 ± 0.07	1.03 ± 0.00	0.53 ± 0.02	0.41 ± 0.02	2.67 ± 0.19	3.10 ± 0.43	4.66 ± 0.01	5.16 ± 0.03	9.16 ± 0.09	10.65 ± 0.46	0.23	0.25
T3	1.20 ± 0.03	1.07 ± 0.07	0.43 ± 0.11	0.49 ± 0.06	3.22 ± 0.62	2.98 ± 0.33	5.77 ± 0.43	6.83 ± 0.28	11.85 ± 0.49	11.38 ± 0.61	0.24	0.28
T4	1.16 ± 0.00	1.21 ± 0.10	0.40 ± 0.07	0.59 ± 0.17	3.07 ± 0.46	3.06 ± 0.30	7.38 ± 0.32	7.61 ± 0.19	12.58 ± 0.18	17.97 ± 0.65	0.26	0.28
T5	1.30 ± 0.07	1.38 ± 0.19	0.37 ± 0.02	0.48 ± 0.05	3.21 ± 0.63	3.00 ± 0.44	7.49 ± 0.00	8.33 ± 0.39	14.38 ± 0.78	12.66 ± 0.47	0.28	0.31
T6	1.52 ± 0.08	1.49 ± 0.09	0.56 ± 0.19	0.63 ± 0.10	3.32 ± 0.28	3.10 ± 0.76	6.88 ± 0.77	9.38 ± 0.22	15.88 ± 0.98	14.65 ± 0.75	0.25	0.25
T7	1.66 ± 0.11	1.69 ± 0.06	0.61 ± 0.05	0.61 ± 0.05	3.11 ± 0.58	3.40 ± 0.57	7.53 ± 0.12	9.02 ± 0.39	16.33 ± 0.48	15.00 ± 1.02	0.23	0.23
r-value	0.934^a		0.454		0.119		0.943^a		0.761		0.933^a
Significance	0.586		0.23		0.957		0.009*		0.676		0.013*