Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
To cite this article: Qurratul, Sumira Jan, Riyazzuddin Khan, Mahmooduzzafar & T.O. Siddiqi (2014): Soil amendments of fly
ash: effects on function and biochemical activity of Carthamus tinctorius L. plants, Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/07929978.2014.945313
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07929978.2014.945313
Department of Botany, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi-62, India; bCentre of Research for Development (CORD),
Kashmir University, India
Introduction
Fly ash is formed of minute glossy particles ranging in
size from 0.01 to 100 mm that are the combustion byproduct of coal (Davison et al. 1974). Indian thermal
power plants produce more than 100 million tons of fly
ash per annum, which is expected to reach 175 million
tons in the near future (Jamwal 2003). Fly ash production
depends on the quality of coal, which contains a relatively
high proportion of ash that leads to 1030% of its formation (Singh et al. 2008). According to World Bank, India
will require 1000 km2 of land for the disposal of nearly
65 million of coal ash till 2015 (Parisara 2007). Therefore,
there is a need for new and innovative methods to reduce
the potential negative impacts of fly ash on the environment. Further, it is necessary to develop possible avenues
for its disposal. One possibility is the utilization of fly ash
as a soil amendment to facilitate efficient plant growth.
Fly ash is alkaline associated with small quantities of Fe,
Ca, Mg, Na, K, Ti and P oxides (Aitken et al. 1984). It
contains several nutrients which are beneficial for plant
growth, as well as toxic heavy metals such as Cr, Pb, Hg,
Ni, V, As and Ba (Robab et al. 2010). Addition of fly ash
to soil neutralizes the acidity to a level suitable for agricultural crops and increases the availability of Na, K, Ca,
*Corresponding author. Email: sumira.sam@gmail.com
2014 Taylor & Francis
Qurratul et al.
Morphological parameters
Plant height was measured in centimeters, number of
branches and leaves per plant were counted at three
Plant material
The crop plant selected for study was safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). It is a tap-root herbaceous, annual oilseed plant belonging to the family Asteraceae. The seeds
of safflower were procured from the Medico Botany Laboratory, Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Jamia
Hamdard, New Delhi.
Experimental setup
The field experiment was repeated three times, each with
five replicates per treatment. Seeds were sown in the first
week of October 2011. Other agricultural practices such
as irrigation and weeding were carried out as is customary
in the region. The planted seeds were observed daily until
germination commenced. The dates of commencement
and termination of germination and the number of seeds
that germinated each day were recorded. The seedlings
were collected at three phenological stages: pre-flowering
(45 days after sowing, DAS), flowering (90 DAS) and
post-flowering (135 DAS). Leaves were collected for the
analyses of growth, yield attributes and photosynthetic
pigments at the physiological maturity of the plant.
total chlorophyll and carotenoid contents using the equations given by Maclachlan and Zalik (1963) for chlorophyll a, Duxbury and Yentsch (1956) for chlorophyll b,
Arnon (1949) for total chlorophyll and Barnes et al.
(1992) for carotenoid contents.
Soluble protein content. Soluble protein content was
analyzed following the method of Bradford (1976).
Nitrate reductase activity. Nitrate reductase activity was
estimated according to Klepper et al. (1971).
Yield characteristics
Soluble sugar content. The soluble sugar was estimated
by method of Dey (1990).
Statistical analysis
Each experiment was repeated three times with five replicates. The data are expressed as mean SE (n D 5). Differences between several mean values were evaluated by
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Duncans multiple range
test (DMRT) at p < 0.05 level was used to determine
whether the values were significantly different from the
control. All the statistical tests were performed using
SPSS software (SPSS Inc., version 16.0).
Biochemical parameters
Photosynthetic pigment. Chlorophyll and carotenoid
contents were measured following Hiscox and Israelstam
(1979). Leaves, kept on a moist filter paper in an icebox,
were washed with cold distilled water. Leaf discs were
taken from either side of the midrib at the intraveinal
region for the determination of chlorophyll and carotenoid
content. One hundred milligrams of the chopped leaf
material were placed in vials containing 7 ml of dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO), in five replicates. The vials were kept
in an oven at 65 C for 1 h for complete leaching of the
pigments. Thereafter, the volume was brought up to 10 ml
with DMSO. The chlorophyll content was measured
immediately as absorbance at 480, 510, 645 and 663 nm
(Beckman spectrophotometer, model DU 640, Fullerton,
USA) against a DMSO blank. Values of optical densities
(ODs) were used to compute chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b,
Results
Physicochemical properties of fly ash and soil
before sowing
The physicochemical property of the soil and the fly ash
samples carried out in the present study is given in Table 1.
Soil pH significantly (p < 0.05) increased with application
of fly ash (from 7.38 in the control (T0) to 7.86 in fly ash
amended soil (T5)). EC value increased (p < 0.05) with
increasing concentration of fly ash application from 5% to
Table 1. Selected physicochemical properties of fly ash amended soils used in the study before sowing.
Fly ash amendments % (w/w)
T0 control
Parameters
pH (1:2, soil: water)
EC (dS/m)
WHC (%)
BD (g/cm3)
OC%
Available P (mg/kg)
Available K (g/kg)
N (%)
S (%)
T1
0%FA
T2
5%FA
7.38 0.001
0.24 0.001f
40.37 0.24f
1.58 0.001a
0.43 0.002f
172.0 0.32f
1.57 0.002f
0.11 0.001a
0.09 0.002f
f
T3
10%FA
7.52 0.001
0.29 0.002e
43.10 0.28e
1.52 0.001b
0.45 0.001e
196.68 0.27e
1.75 0.004e
0.09 0.001b
0.10 0.002e
e
T4
25%FA
7.65 0.001
0.89 0.002d
46.64 0.25d
1.42 0.001c
0.47 0.001d
204.77 0.30d
2.36 0.018d
0.08 0.001c
0.12 0.001d
d
T5
50%FA
7.68 0.002
0.92 0.010c
51.62 0.42c
1.41 0.001d
0.51 0.001c
236.56 0.22c
2.52 0.005c
0.07 0.001d
0.15 0.001c
c
75%FA
7.72 0.01
1.10 0.012b
54.89 0.33b
1.38 0.001e
0.53 0.002b
251.97 0.35b
2.67 0.002b
0.06 0.001e
0.27 0.002b
b
7.86 0.02a
1.23 0.013a
59.54 0.315a
1.35 0.001f
0.57 0.002a
289.90 0.38a
2.73 0.003a
0.05 0.001f
0.36 0.002a
Values represent mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other by DMRT (Duncans multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly ash (FA).
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Values represent mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are significantly (p < 0.05) different from each
other DMRT (Duncans multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly ash (FA).
75%FA
50%FA
25%FA
5%FA
0%FA
10%FA
T4
T3
T2
T1
T0 control
Morphological parameters
Shoot height, fresh and dry biomass of Carthamus tinctorius L. showed significant (p < 0.05) variation at all stages
of plant development (Table 2AC). Shoot length, shoot
fresh and dry biomass were increased progressively from
5% to 25% fly ash applications as compared to control.
The highest increase was recorded in T3, with 25% of fly
ash supplementation at all stages of plant development.
With further increase in percentage of fly ash (i.e. in T4
and T5) the morphological development of the plants was
decreased and the lowest values were found at the 75% fly
ash treatment. However, the maximum increase (72.24%)
in shoot length was recorded in T3 plant at the pre-flowering stage, followed by the flowering (39.31%) and the
post-flowering (31.50%) stages. While in the case of shoot
fresh weight, maximum increase (163.53%) was recorded
in T3 at pre-flowering stage followed by flowering
(124.16%) and post-flowering (62.30%) stages. Shoot dry
weight followed the same trend as shoot fresh weight.
Root length, fresh weight and dry weight of Carthamus tinctorius L. showed significant increase (p < 0.05)
in T2 and T3 with 10 and 25% fly ash mixture at all stages
of plant development compared to control (Table 3AC).
The highest increase was recorded in T3 (25% of fly ash)
and decreased under higher application rates. Moreover,
the maximum increase in root length (57.68%) was
recorded with T3 at post-flowering stage, followed by
flowering (55.49%) and pre-flowering (52.76%) stages.
While, in the case of root fresh weight, the maximum
increase (152.02%) was recorded in T3 at the flowering
stage, followed by post-flowering (107.3%) and pre-flowering (68.76%) stages. The same trend was observed in
root dry weight.
The number of branches showed a significant (p <
0.05) increase from 5% to 25% fly ash treatments at all
stages of plant development (Figure 1A). The highest
Parameters/stages
T5
Qurratul et al.
Table 2. Effect of fly ash on shoot length (cm/plant), shoot fresh weight (g/plant) and dry weight (g/plant) at various growth stages of Carthamus tinctorius L.
25%FA
T3
50%FA
T4
75%FA
T5
Values in parenthesis indicates percent variation with reference to respective controls. Values represent mean SE (n D5). Values with different superscripts are significantly (p < 0.05) different from each
other DMRT (Duncans multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly ash (FA).
T2
10%FA
0%FA
T1
5%FA
Parameters/stages
T0 control
Table 3. Effect of fly ash on root length (cm/plant), root fresh weight (g/plant) and dry weight (g/plant) at various growth stages of Carthamus tinctorius L.
30
25
10
100
20
40
Pre-flowering
15
d
c
T0
120
d
40
d
c
T0
T1
Flowering
a
35
c
b
T1
Pre-flowering
c
c
20
b
T2
140
T2
T3
Post-flowering
a
A
c
e
e
a
f
T3
Flowering
80
e
e
f
0
Treatment
T4
T4
T5
a a
Post-flowering
b
B
b
e
f
f
60
a
Treatment
T5
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other DMRT
(Duncans multiple range test). ). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly ash (FA).
75%FA
25%FA
Parameters/stages
0%FA
5%FA
10%FA
T4
T3
T2
T1
T0 control
Table 4. Effect of fly ash on the leaf fresh (g/plant) and dry weight (g/plant) at various growth stages of Carthamus tinctorius L.
50%FA
Qurratul et al.
T5
30
25
20
b
c
d
15
e
f
10
5
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T1
T2
T3
Treatment
T4
c
e
T1
T2
T3
Treatment
c
d
e
f
T1
T2
2.5
T0
T3
T4
T5
Treatment
T0
T5
T4
T5
T0
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
b
c
1.5
d
1
e
f
0.5
0
T0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Treatment
Figure 2. Effect of fly ash on the number of heads per plant (A), number of seeds per head (B), weight of 100 seeds per plant (C) and
weight of seeds per head (D) at harvest of Carthamus tinctorius L. Values represent mean SE (n D 5). Means marked by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different according to DMRT (Duncans multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5:
75% fly ash (FA).
Treatment
Treatment
Pre-flowering
T0 control
0%FA
T1
5%FA
T2
10%FA
T3
25%FA
T4
50%FA
T5
75%FA
T0 control
0%FA
T1
5%FA
T2
10%FA
T3
25%FA
T4
50%FA
T5
75%FA
Pre-flowering
Flowering
Post-flowering
1.37 0.02d
1.447 0.001d
0.905 0.002d
1.453 0.085c
(6.058)
1.706 0.145b
(24.52)
1.786 0.121a
(30.36)
1.281 0.015e
(6.49)
1.18 0.044f
(13.86)
1.510 0.001c
(4.35)
1.993 0.001b
(37.73)
2.207 0.009a
(52.52)
1.437 0.001d
(0.69)
1.349 0.001e
(6.77)
1.045 0.002c
(15.46)
1.208 0.001b
(33.48)
1.350 0.002a
(49.17)
0.823 0.001e
(9.06)
0.727 0.026f
(19.66)
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are
significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other by DMRT (Duncans
multiple range test). ). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly
ash (FA).
Flowering
Post-flowering
0.252 0.055
0.620 0.001
0.238 0.002d
0.321 0.001bc
(27.38)
0.350 0.001b
(38.88)
0.445 0.001a
(76.58)
0.279 0.001cd
(10.71)
0.235 0.001d
(6.74)
0.668 0.002c
(7.74)
0.808 0.002b
(30.32)
0.878 0.002a
(41.61)
0.456 0.005e
(26.45)
0.380 0.001f
(38.70)
0.298 0.002c
(25.21)
0.439 0.002b
(84.45)
0.582 0.002a
(144.53)
0.195 0.002e
(18.06)
0.156 0.001f
(34.45)
cd
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are
significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other by DMRT (Duncans
multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly
ash (FA).
Qurratul et al.
Treatment
Pre-flowering
Flowering
T0 control
0%FA
T1
5%FA
T2
10%FA
T3
25%FA
T4
50%FA
T5
75%FA
1.708 0.001
2.074 0.02
1.164 0.017
Soluble sugar content. Low dosages of fly ash amendment increased sugar content of Carthamus tinctorius L.
(Figure 3C). The highest increase was observed with 25%
2.192 0.002c
(5.68)
2.814 0.002b
(35.67)
3.091 0.003a
(49.03)
1.905 0.002e
(8.14)
1.73 0.003f
(16.58)
1.337 0.002c
(14.86)
1.647 0.001b
(41.49)
1.893 0.027a
(62.62)
1.009 0.001e
(13.31)
0.905 0.002f
(22.25)
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Mean SE (n D 5). Values with different superscripts are
significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other by DMRT (Duncans
multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly
ash (FA).
Pre-flowering
Flowering
T0 control
0%FA
T1
5%FA
T2
10%FA
T3
25%FA
T4
50%FA
T5
75%FA
0.768 0.002
0.819 0.001
0.852 0.001
(10.93)
1.009 0.001b
(31.38)
1.212 0.001a
(57.81)
0.738 0.001e
(3.90)
0.656 0.004f
(14.58)
c
Post-flowering
d
0.855 0.002
(4.39)
1.013 0.019b
(23.68)
1.177 0001a
(43.71)
0.738 0.001e
(9.89)
0.713 0.001f
(12.94)
c
0.467 0.001
0.518 0.002
(10.92)
0.637 0.002b
(36.40)
0.740 0.002a
(58.45)
0.440 0.001e
(5.78)
0.418 0.002f
(10.49)
c
Values in parentheses indicate percent variation with reference to respective controls. Mean SE (n = 5). Values with different superscripts are
significantly (p < 0.05) different from each other by DMRT (Duncans
multiple range test). T0: 0, T1: 5, T2:10, T3:25, T4: 50 and T5: 75% fly
ash (FA).
Pre-flowering
Flowering
40
Protein content (mg g-1 FW)
1.771 0.001c
(3.68)
2.184 0.002b
(27.86)
2.468 0.002a
(44.49)
1.535 0.003e
(10.12)
1.320 0.001f
(22.71)
35
30
25
d
d
e
a
20
f
e
15
Post-flowering
f
f
10
5
0
T0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Treatment
Pre-flowering
NR activity (mol g FW-1h-1)
Post-flowering
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Flowering
a
Post-flowering
d
c
e
d
T0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Treatment
Pre-flowering
Sugar content (mg gFW-1)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Flowering
Post-flowering
b
c
d
b
c
d
d
T0
T1
e
e
T2
T3
Treatment
T4
T5
10
Qurratul et al.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates stimulating effects of fly
ash, on growth, biomass production, productivity and photosynthetic pigments on safflower growing on soil
amended with low (25%) levels of fly ash. Higher percentages reduced plant performance, suggesting detrimental
effects of fly ash.
References
Abrol YP, Kaim MS, Nair TVR. 1976. Nitrogen assimilation, its
mobilization and accumulation in wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) grains. Cereal Res Comm. 4:43140.
Ahmaruzzaman M. 2010. A review on the utilization of fly ash.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 36:32763.
Aitken RL, Campbell DJ, Bell LC. 1984. Properties of Australian fly ashes relevant to their agronomic utilization. Aust J
Soil Res. 22 (4):44353.
Allison FA. 1973. Soil organic matter and its role in crop production. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Arnon DI. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 24:115.
Ayari O, Samson G, Dorais M, Boulanger R, Gosselin A. 2000.
Stomatal limitation of photosynthesis in winter production
11
12
Qurratul et al.
Pandey VC. 2013. Suitability of Ricinus communis L. Cultivation for phytoremediation of fly ash disposal sites. Ecol Eng.
57:33641.
Pandey V, Misra J, Singh SN, Singh N, Yunus M, Ahmad KJ.
1994. Growth response of Helianthus annuus L. grown on
fly ash amended soil. Indian J Environ Biol. 15:11725.
Pandey VC, Singh JS, Kumar A, Tewari DD. 2010. Accumulation
of heavy metals by chickpea grown in fly ash treated soil:
effect on antioxidants. Clean Soil Air Water. 38:111628.
Parisara. 2007. Utility bonanza from dust. ENVIS newsletter,
Department of Forests, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, vol. 2 no. 6 (Jan).
Parween T, Jan S, Mahmooduzzafar., Fatma T. 2011a. Assessing
the impact of chlorpyrifos on growth, photosynthetic pigments and yield in Vigna radiata L. at different phenological
stages. African J Agr Res. 6(19):443240.
Parween T, Jan S, Mahmooduzzafar., Fatma T. 2011b. Alteration in nitrogen metabolism and plant growth during different developmental stages of green gram (Vigna radiata L.)
in response to chlorpyrifos. Acta Physiol Plant. 33:232128.
Rammal H, Younos C, Bouayed J, Chakou A, Necerbey N, Soulimani R. 2009. Aperc u ethnobotanique et phytopharmacologique sur Carthamus tinctorius L. Phytotherapie. 7:2830.
Robab MI, Hisamuddin., Azam T. 2010. Impact of fly ash on
vegetative growth and photosynthetic pigment concentrations of Solanum nigrum L. Nanobiotechnica universale. 1
(2) :133138.
Romero-Puertas MC, Palma JM, Giomez M, del Rio A, Sandalio
LM. 2002. Cadmium causes the oxidative modification of
proteins in pea plants. Plant Cell Environ. 25:67786.
Sarangi PK, Mahakur D, Mishra PC. 2001. Soil biochemical
activity and growth response of rice Oryza sativa in flyash
amended soil. Bioresource Technol. 76:199205.
Sehgal D, Raina SN, Devarumatha RM, Sasanuma T, Sasakuma
T. 2009. Nuclear DNA assay in solving issues related to
ancestry of the domesticated diploid safflower (Carthamus
tinctorius L.) and the polyploid (Carthamus) taxa, and phylogenetic and genomic relationships in the genus Carthamus L.
(Asteraceae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 53:63144.
Sharma RK, Agrawal M, Agrawal SB. 2008. Interactive effects
of Cd and Zn on carrots: growth and biomass accumulation.
J Plant Nutr. 31:117.
Sharma S, Sharma P, Mehrotra P. 2010. Bioaccumulation of
heavy metals in Pisum sativum L. growing in fly ash
amended soil. J American Sci. 6(6):4350.
Sharma SK, Kalra N. 2006. Effect of fly ash incorporation on
soil properties and productivity of crops: a review. J Sci Ind
Res. 65:38390.
Shoresh M, Spivak M, Bernstein N. 2011. Involvement of calcium-mediated effects on ROS metabolism in regulation of
growth improvement under salinity. Free Radicals Biol
Med. 51:122134.
Singh A, Agrawal SB. 2010. Response of mung bean cultivars to
fly ash: growth and yield. Ecotox Environ Safe. 73:195058.
Singh A, Sarkar A, Agrawal SB. 2012. Assessing the potential
impact of fly ash amendments on Indian paddy field with
special emphasis on growth, yield, and grain quality of three
rice cultivars. Environ Monit Assess. 184:47994814.
Singh A, Sharma RK, Agrawal SB. 2008. Effects of fly ash
incorporation on heavy metal accumulation, growth and
yield responses of Beta vulgaris plants. Bioresource Technol. 99:720007.
Singh LP, Siddiqui ZA. 2003. Effects of fly ash and Helminthosporium oryzae on growth and yield of three cultivars of
rice. Bioresource Technol. 86:7378.
Singh SN, Kulshreshtha K, Ahmad KJ. 1997. Impact of
fly ash soil amendment on seed germination, seedling
growth and metal composition of Vicia faba L. Ecol Eng.
9:20308.
Sinha S, Gupta AK. 2005. Translocation of metals from
fly-ash amended soil in the plant of Sesbania cannabina L.
Ritz: effect on antioxidants. Chemosphere. 61:1204
14.
Sinha S, Gupta AK, Bhatt K. 2007. Response of antioxidants in
Trigonella foenumgraecum grown on different amendments
of tannery sludge: its metal accumulation potential. Ecotox
Environ Saf. 67:26727.
13