Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 3;14(1):15265.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66204-9.

Effect of silicon spraying on rice photosynthesis and antioxidant defense system on cadmium accumulation

Hongxing Chen  1   2 , Xiaoyun Huang  1   2 , Hui Chen  1   2 , Song Zhang  1   2 , Chengwu Fan  3 , Tianling Fu  2   4 , Tengbing He  1   2 , Zhenran Gao  5   6
Affiliations

Effect of silicon spraying on rice photosynthesis and antioxidant defense system on cadmium accumulation

Hongxing Chen et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Cadmium (Cd) pollution is a serious threat to food safety and human health. Minimizing Cd uptake and enhancing Cd tolerance in plants are vital to improve crop yield and reduce hazardous effects to humans. In this study, we designed three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg-1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg-1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg-1) and two foliar silicon (Si) treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, and Si: foliar Si spraying) to conduct pot experiments on soil Cd stress. The results showed that spraying Si on the leaves reduced the Cd content in brown rice by 4.79-42.14%. Si application increased net photosynthetic rate (Pn) by 1.77-4.08%, stomatal conductance (Gs) by 5.27-23.43%, transpiration rate (Tr) by 2.99-20.50% and intercellular carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (Ci) by 6.55-8.84%. Foliar spraying of Si significantly increased the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) in rice leaves by 9.84-14.09% and 4.69-53.09%, respectively, and reduced the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) by 7.83-48.72%. In summary, foliar Si spraying protects the photosynthesis and antioxidant system of rice canopy leaves, and is an effective method to reduce the Cd content in brown rice.

Keywords: Antioxidant defense system; Cd; Photosynthesis; Rice; Si.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The effect of foliar Si spraying on the BCF of various organs in rice: BCFroot (a), BCFstem (b), BCFleaf (c), BCFbrown rice (d). Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The effect of foliar Si spraying on the TF of various organs in rice: TFroot-stem (a), TFstem-leaf (b), TFleaf-brown rice (c), TFstem-brown rice (d). Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The effects of foliar Si spraying on the SPAD values of rice leaves. Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of six replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The effects of foliar Si spraying on the photosynthetic parameters of rice leaves: net photosynthetic rate (Pn) (a), stomatal conductance (Gs) (b), transpiration rate (Tr) (c), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) (d). Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The effects of foliar Si spraying on the chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of rice leaves: actual photochemical efficiency: Y (II) (a), non photochemical quenching coefficient: (NPQ) (b), initial fluorescence (Fo) (c), maximum photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) (d). Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The effects of foliar Si spraying on MDA, POD and SOD content in rice leaves: malondialdehyde: MDA (a), peroxidase: (POD) (b), superoxide dismutase (SOD) (c). Cd1, Cd2, Cd3: Three Cd concentration stress treatments (Cd1: 0.20 mg·kg−1, Cd2: 0.60 mg·kg−1, and Cd3: 1.60 mg·kg−1). CK, Si: two spraying treatments (CK: no spraying of any material, Si: foliar Si spraying). Data present the mean ± standard deviation of three replicates. Capital letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK and Si treatments at the same Cd concentration. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between CK or Si treatments at different Cd concentrations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Zhu JM, et al. A new method for evaluating the bioaccessibility of different foodborne forms of cadmium. Toxicol. Lett. 2020;319:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2019.11.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farooq MA, et al. Alleviation of cadmium toxicity by silicon is related to elevated photosynthesis, antioxidant enzymes; suppressed cadmium uptake and oxidative stress in cotton. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2013;96:242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.07.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rizwan M, et al. A critical review on effects, tolerance mechanisms and management of cadmium in vegetables. Chemosphere. 2017;182:90–105. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huang HL, et al. Synergistic effect of silicon and selenium on the alleviation of cadmium toxicity in rice plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021;401:123393. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123393. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Khodaverdiloo H, Dashtaki SG, Rezapour S. Lead and cadmium accumulation potential and toxicity threshold determined for land cress and spinach. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2011;5(3):275–281.