Use of decontaminated river sediments in plant nursing

Results 2 – cultivating ornamental species

CONCLUSION 2The Cleansed sediments: 1) Are fairly good for species growth. Photinia x fraseri and Eleagnus macrophylla did not show significant differences with respect to control; Viburnum tinus improved its parameters. Sediments enhance root growth despite root defects should be cut at the first transplanting into the substrates.

Ugolini F., Sabatini F., Lanini G.M., Martelli F., Tagliaferri G., Massetti L.Institute of Biometeorology - CNR

WEATHER

LEAF GAS EXCHANGES

BIOMASS & ROOTS

E. macrophylla P. x fraseri V. tinusTRANSPIRATION 2015

NET PHOTOSYNTHESIS 2015

LEAF WATER LEAF POTENTIAL

Plants growth depends on abiotic and biotic variables (substrate, nutrients, weather, interactions with other organisms etc.) and optimal conditions are found when these variables supply the species needs.

Summer 2014 was a wetter whilst summer 2015 was dryer than the climate normals.

2014 2015

The leaf water potential represents the leaf water status. The minimum water potential is measured at the time of higher water stress (1-2 p.m.). The lower the leaf water potential, the strongest the force applied to extract water and it can be due to the high leaf transpiration.In some dates, T33 and T50 show the lowest values.

Photinia and Eleagnus, more water demanding, show highertranspiration in T50 whilstViburnum seems fairly to adaptto the substrates with sediments.Regarding photosynthesis, the differences between substratesare sporadic, Viburnum againshows the higher values in T50.

H Fin

(cm)

ΔH

(cm)

Ø fin

(mm)

ΔØ

(mm)

Leaf Area

(m2)

Leaf DW

(g)

Wood

DW (g)

CTL 226±17 181±18 40±3 17±3 4.5±1 617±106 1105±144

T33 214±22 170±21 41±8 17±8 4.3±0.6 592±78 932±252

T50 210±19 167±17 37±9 16±6 4.1±1 587±122 8804±229

CTL T33 T50

Eleagnus macrophylla L.

H Fin

(cm)

ΔH

(cm)

Ø fin

(mm)

ΔØ

(mm)

Leaf Area

(m2)

Leaf DW

(g)

Wood DW

(g)

CTL 151±10 100±10 33±3 12±2 1.4±0.4 242±67 590±193

T33 165±23 117±22 34±3 13±2 1.7±0.5 270±71 628±139

T50 156±28 100±29 35±4 15±5 1.8±0.5 293±78 652±166

No difference between substrates

H Fin

(cm)

ΔH

(cm)

Ø fin

(mm)

ΔØ

(mm)

Leaf Area

(m2)

Leaf DW

(g)

Wood

DW (g)

CTL 64±14 39±15 23±5 11±5 1.24±0.6 152±65 152±78

T33 79±5 50±7 25±5 11±4 2.44±0.4 247±45 259±76

T50 89±5 62±5 28±6 16±8 2.2±0.5 237±51 269±67

Biomass and growth is higher greater in T33 and T50

Photinia x fraseri var. Red Robin Viburnum tinus L.

No difference between substrates

CTL T33 T50

CTL T33 T50

Heavy metals concentration in leaf tissues are far from toxicity level. Plants did not show symptoms of deficiency.

Eleagnus show higher values of Ni in T33 and T50 than CTL (mg/kg 17±8 a; 22±9 a vs. 2±1 b at P<0.05) though the concentrations were higher in CTL substrate. Viburnum showed higher values of Cd in T33 and T50 than CTL (mg/kg 3±1 a; 5±1 a vs. <0.1 b at P<0.05 ), in accordance to the substrates’ level.Higher absorption and translocation capacity for Cr (mg/kg 76±47; 63±52 vs. 38±52) in all substrates and Zn (27±3 b; 35±2 a ; 21±3 c at P<0.05) in T33 and T50 compared to CTL.Photinia showed also higher Zn in T50 and T33 compared to CTL (15±3 a; 14±2 ab; 11±2 b at P<0.05).

LEAF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Circling roots Kinked roots

ROOTS ARE WELL AND UNIFORMELY

DISTRIBUTED

STRUCTURE AND GROWTH IS

APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES

% plants in CTL 88% 50% 75% 0%% plants in T33 50% 13% 63% 75%% plants in T50 63% 25% 75% 88%

CTL vs T33 Chi = 22.44

CTL vs T33 Chi = 27.05 CTL vs T33 Chi = 2.53CTL vs T33 Chi = 97.83

CTL vs T50 Chi = 25.62

CTL vs T50 Chi = 11.16 CTL vs T50 Chi = 0.33CTL vs T50 Chi = 122.9

T33 vs T50 Chi = 2.79

T33 vs T50 Chi = 4.56 T33 vs T50 Chi = 2.53T33 vs T50 Chi = 3.65

Circling roots Kinked roots

ROOTS ARE WELL AND UNIFORMELY

DISTRIBUTED

STRUCTURE AND GROWTH IS

APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES

% plants in CTL 75% 0% 38% 88%% plants in T33 50% 0% 63% 88%% plants in T50 50% 38% 38% 100%

CTL vs T33 Chi = 9.49

CTL vs T33 Chi = --

CTL vs T33 Chi = 9.67 CTL vs T33 Chi = 0.33

CTL vs T50 Chi =9.49

CTL vs T50 Chi = 42.78

CTL vs T50 Chi = 0.33 CTL vs T50 Chi = 7.09

T33 vs T50 Chi = 0.33

T33 vs T50 Chi = 42.78

T33 vs T50 Chi = 9.67 T33 vs T50 Chi = 7.09

Circling roots Kinked roots

ROOTS ARE WELL AND UNIFORMELY

DISTRIBUTED

STRUCTURE AND GROWTH IS

APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES

% plants in CTL 50% 25% 63% 63%% plants in T33 50% 63% 50% 88%% plants in T50 50% 50% 38% 75%

CTL vs T33 Chi = 0.33

CTL vs T33 Chi = 23.18

CTL vs T33 Chi = 2.79

CTL vs T33 Chi = 10.84

CTL vs T50 Chi = 0.33

CTL vs T50 Chi = 11.16

CTL vs T50 Chi = 9.67

CTL vs T50 Chi = 2.53

T33 vs T50 Chi = 0.33

T33 vs T50 Chi = 2.79

T33 vs T50 Chi = 2.61

T33 vs T50 Chi = 3.65