Influence of humus on chromium absorption by coffee seedlings grown on substrate containing tannery sludge

Berilli, Sávio da Silva; Oliveira, Dhiego da Silva; Martineli, Leonardo; Pereira, Lucas Louzada; Cunha, Maura Da; Pireda, Saulo

doi:10.1590/0034-737X202370010010

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Physiology and morphology applied to agricultura • Rev. Ceres 70 (1) • Jan-Feb 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-737X202370010010 copy

Influence of humus on chromium absorption by coffee seedlings grown on substrate containing tannery sludge

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Chromium is present in the tannery sludges worldwide making it a problem for agriculture. This study aimed to evaluate whether humus functions as a chromium stabilizing agent when using tannery sludge in the substrate of conilon coffee seedlings (Coffea canephora) and to determine what effects there are on leaf development and anatomy. Treatments consisted of a fixed dose of tannery sludge (30% of volume) on substrates of conilon coffee seedlings with different proportions of humus and subsoil (T-10, T-20, T-30, T-40% of humus). Information for the evaluation of leaf anatomy and seedling development was collected at 180 days after the planting of cuttings. From the phenological point of view, the treatments that best promoted seedling quality were T-30 and T-40. However, the greater the amount of humus in the substrate the greater the absorption of chromium by plants, which directly affected the organization of epidermal cells and leaf mesophyll. In addition, intense cytoplasmic degradation, ultrastructural changes in chloroplasts and mitochondria, and an increase in autophagic vacuoles were observed. We conclude that increasing the amount of humus in substrate with tannery sludge provides higher quality coffee seedlings, despite promoting greater absorption of chromium by plants and the consequent major intracellular disturbances.

Keywords
leaf anatomy; chromium; oxidative stress; plant nutrition; Coffea canephora

Treatment	Substrate component
T-C	100% conventional substrate
T-10	10% humus + 30% dehydrated tannery sludge + 60% subsoil
T-20	20% humus + 30% dehydrated tannery sludge + 50% subsoil
T-30	30% humus + 30% dehydrated tannery sludge + 40% subsoil
T-40	40% humus + 30% dehydrated tannery sludge + 30% subsoil
T-S	100% subsoil

pH	O.M.	P	K	Ca	Mg	Al	Na	S.B.	T	t	m	V	Fe	Cu	Zn	Mn
	-------g/dm^-3-------			------------cmol_c/dm^-3-----------							---%---		------mg/dm^-3------
5	8.1	0.005	0.048	0.8	1.3	0	0.03	2.3	3.1	2.3	0	74	7	0.6	0.8	7.9

pH	O.M.	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	E.C.	Fe	Cu	Zn	Mn
	---------- g/dm^-3---------				-cmol_c/dm^-3-		dS/m^-1	----------- mg/dm^-3-----------
12.30	305	3.7	2	0.8	2.70	0.1	17.30	57	1	1	1

pH	O.M	P	K	Ca	Mg	Fe	Cu	Zn	Mn	m	V
	---------g/dm^-3--------			--cmol_c/dm^-3--		------------mg/dm^-3-----------				-----%----
6.8	202	0.09	0.21	93.1	146	57	1	1	1	1.9	82

Treatment	Seedling height (cm)	Leaf number	Canopy diameter (cm)	Stem diameter (mm)
T-C	114.49 ± 34.59	6.9 ± 1.84	196.2 ± 25.08	3.01 ± 0.270
T-10	0086.15 ± 31.18^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	6.0 ± 1.15	168.9 ± 23.27	2.66 ± 0.23^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
T-20	0101.4 ± 24.47	6.7 ± 1.03	191.5 ± 11.52	2.89 ± 0.170
T-30	0111.6 ± 41.97	6.7 ± 1.31	192.0 ± 27.77	2.88 ± 0.260
T-40	093.08 ± 42.38	6.3 ± 1.70	189.1 ± 27.69	2.78 ± 0.30^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
T-S	00045.5 ± 14.10^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	04.5 ± 0.94^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	0142.4 ± 50.79^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	2.42 ± 0.14^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.

Treatment	TFM (g)	TDM (g)	DQI
T-C	6.85 ± 2.590	2.18 ± 0.890	0.055 ± 0.03
T-10	8.11 ± 2.190	2.48 ± 0.580	0.072 ± 0.01
T-20	7.18 ± 0.920	2.07 ± 0.250	0.057 ± 0.01
T-30	9.76 ± 1.27^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	3.48 ± 1.13^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	00.094 ± 0.05^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
T-40	9.60 ± 3.76^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	2.99 ± 1.250	00.090 ± 0.04^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
T-S	2.96 ± 1.61^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	0.98 ± 0.55^* * differs significantly from conventional substrate (T-C) according to Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.	0.048 ± 0.03

Universidade Federal de Viçosa Av. Peter Henry Rolfs, s/n, 36570-000 Viçosa, Minas Gerais Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 31) 3612-2078 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: ceres@ufv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: saulopireda@hotmail.com