Next Article in Journal
Response of Leaf Senescence, Photosynthetic Characteristics, and Yield of Summer Maize to Controlled-Release Urea-Based Application Depth
Previous Article in Journal
Boron Effects on Fruit Set, Yield, Quality and Paternity of Macadamia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy12030686
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Yielding and Bioaccumulation of Zinc by Cocksfoot under Conditions of Different Doses of This Metal and Organic Fertilization

by
Beata Kuziemska
*,
Paulina Klej
,
Andrzej Wysokinski
,
Dawid Jaremko
and
Krzysztof Pakuła
Faculty of Agrobioengineering and Animal Husbandry, Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08110 Siedlce, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(3), 686; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030686
Submission received: 25 January 2022 / Revised: 4 March 2022 / Accepted: 10 March 2022 / Published: 11 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Heavy Metal Pollution and Its Effects on Agriculture—2nd Edition)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Zinc is essential for the growth and development of plants, but in excessive amounts in the soil it can be toxic for them. Its mobility depends in part on the organic matter content of the soil. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of application of increasing amounts of zinc (200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil) together with various forms of organic fertilizer (cattle manure, chicken manure and spent mushroom substrate) on the yield of cocksfoot and the content and uptake of this metal, and to determine its bioaccumulation factor and tolerance indices. A minor effect of zinc on cocksfoot, expressed as a decrease in yield, was observed following the application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Increasing application to 600 mg Zn·kg−1 caused a significant decrease in yield. Application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil significantly reduced the value of the Zn/Org tolerance index. Increasing levels of zinc application increased its content and uptake by cocksfoot and reduced the bioaccumulation factor in the plants. All of the organic materials applied increased the yield of cocksfoot and its uptake of zinc. Spent mushroom substrate increased the Zn/Org tolerance index, while cattle manure and chicken manure increased the Org/Zn tolerance index, which confirms their protective action against high zinc content in the soil.

1. Introduction

Human activity is causing an increase in the content of heavy metals in the environment (soil, water and air), posing a threat to living organisms [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. These elements are neither removed from the environment nor degraded, unlike other pollutants, which can be degraded by either chemical or biological means [8]. Excessive content of heavy metals in the soil, especially in bioavailable forms, increases their uptake and causes them to accumulate in plants. This negatively affects germination, root growth, the development of above-ground organs, biomass production, and transpiration. Heavy metals also disturb control mechanisms at the gene level, inhibit the activity of enzymatic proteins, impair the functioning of metabolic pathways, and contribute to apoptosis [9]. Zinc is a distinctive heavy metal that is essential for plants and animals in low concentrations, but becomes toxic for them above a critical concentration [10]. Its content in the soil depends mainly on its quantity in the bedrock and on anthropogenic factors [11]. Zinc is present in the soil solution, adsorbed on various minerals, e.g., clay minerals, oxides or carbonates, or bound to organic matter [12,13]. Soils with insufficient levels of zinc are also common throughout the world [14,15]. Zinc is an essential micronutrient for plants, in which it takes part in chlorophyll biosynthesis and gene expression and is a cofactor of many enzymes [16,17,18,19,20]. It is a component of carbonic anhydrase and a stimulator of aldolase, enzymes which take part in carbon metabolism [21]. It also influences the capacity for water uptake and transport, reduces the unfavourable effects of short periods of high temperatures and salt stress [22], and increases the resistance of plants to fungal diseases [23,24]. Stress associated with zinc deficiency in plants, caused by its low bioavailability, reduces productivity and the nutritional quality of food [25]. In the case of high content in the soil, however, zinc can be toxic for plants, and plants that have taken up excessive zinc exhibit symptoms similar to those occurring in the case of other toxic heavy metals, such as Cd or Pb [26]. In most cases, excessive Zn generates reactive oxygen species and displaces other metals from active sites in proteins. Its toxicity is manifested in part by impaired seed germination, limited growth, and chlorotic and necrotic changes on the leaves [27]. The mobility of zinc and thus its toxicity for plants can be reduced by increasing the content of organic matter in the soil. Its sources are organic fertilizers and organic waste materials used as fertilizers [28]. They then form mineral–organic complexes (chelates), thereby reducing the bioavailability of zinc for plants [3].
The aim of the study was to determine the effect of increasing levels of zinc application in combination with additional various organic fertilizers on the yield of cocksfoot and the content and uptake of the metal, as well as to determine the bioaccumulation factor and tolerance indices.
The research hypothesis was that the application of all organic substances to the soil would increase the tolerance of cocksfoot to increasing levels of zinc, reducing the accumulation of this heavy metal in the harvested biomass.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

A three-year pot experiment was carried out in a greenhouse in 2014–2016. Pots with a capacity of 10 dm3 were filled with 12 kg of Luvisol soil consisting of 71% sand, 24% silt, and 5% clay. The experiment was set up in a completely randomized design in triplicate, including two factors:
I—zinc application rate: control—no zinc application (0) and 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Zinc was applied to the soil once, before sowing of the test plant, only in the first year of the study, in the form of an aqueous solution of ZnSO4·5H2O. Zinc was not applied to the soil in subsequent years of the study.
II—organic fertilization: control—no application of organic materials (CO) and application of cattle manure (CM), chicken manure (ChM) and spent mushroom substrate (MS). Organic fertilizers were applied separately, once, in the first year of the study, two weeks before sowing of the test plant, at a rate of 2 g Corg·kg−1 of soil. In all years of the study the test plant was the Amera cultivar of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.), which was sown every year in the first ten days of May. The aerial parts of the plants were harvested four times each year at 30-day intervals.

2.2. Laboratory Analyses

Selected properties of the organic materials are presented in Table 1. The following were determined in samples of each of the organic materials: dry matter (DM at 105 °C), organic carbon by the Tyurin method, total nitrogen content by the CHNS method (CHN Autoanalyser with IDC detector, Series II 2400, Perkin-Elmer, Valencia, CA, USA), and the content of P, K, C, Mg, S and Zn by the ICP-AES method (Optima 3200 RL spectrometer, Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) after dry mineralization of the samples at 500 °C. The 6.65 pH soil on which the pot experiment was carried out contained 1.52 g·kg−1 total nitrogen, 16.40 g·kg−1 organic carbon, 176 mg·kg−1 P and 108 mg·kg−1 K in available forms for plants (determined by the Egner–Riehm method), and 56.6 mg·kg−1 total Zn. The following were determined in the soil: pH (potentiometrically in 1 mol·dm3 KCl), organic carbon by the Tyurin method, total nitrogen content by the CHNS method, and total Zn by ACP-AES, following wet mineralization of the material in a mixture of concentrated HCl and HNO3 (3:1 radio).
Dry matter yield was determined after drying at 75 °C. Zinc content in the plant material was determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) following dry mineralization at 450 °C and dissolution in a 10% HCl solution.

2.3. Calculations

The results were used to calculate the zinc bioaccumulation factor [29,30] and tolerance indices [31], using the following mathematical formulas:
BAZn = Znplant/Znsoil
where:
  • BAZn—zinc bioaccumulation factor
  • Znplant—zinc content in cocksfoot
  • Znsoil—total zinc content in soil
TIorg/Zn = Yorg/Y0_org
where:
  • TIorg/Zn—tolerance index illustrating the effect of various organic fertilizers in combination with increasing levels of zinc
  • Yorg—weight (yield) of cocksfoot fertilized with a given organic material obtained following application of 0, 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil
  • Y0_org—weight (yield) of cocksfoot obtained without application of organic fertilizer following application of 0, 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil
where:
TIZn/Org = YZn/Y0_Zn
  • TIZn/Org—zinc tolerance index illustrating the effect of increasing levels of zinc in combination with application of various organic fertilizers
  • YZn—weight (yield) of cocksfoot fertilized with a given amount of zinc obtained in the control treatment without organic fertilizers and following application of CM, ChM and MS
  • Y0_Zn—weight (yield) of cocksfoot without zinc application obtained in the control treatment without organic fertilizers and following application of CM, ChM and MS
Znup = Y × Znplant
where:
  • Znup—Zn accumulation in cocksfoot dry matter (uptake by cocksfoot)
  • Y—yield of cocksfoot
  • Znplant—Zn content in cocksfoot DM

2.4. Statistical Analyses

The results were analysed by analysis of variance using with the Fisher–Snedecor distribution, and LSD values at a significance level of α = 0.05 were calculated by the Tukey test. Statistica 13 PL software (13.1 version, StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) was used for the calculations. In addition, Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient was calculated for some of the examined traits.

3. Results

Application of increasing amounts of zinc (0, 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil) and various organic fertilizers (cattle manure, chicken manure and spent mushroom substrate) significantly affected the yield of cocksfoot, the tolerance indices, zinc content and uptake by cocksfoot, and the bioaccumulation factor of the metal (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).
Significantly the highest yield of cocksfoot was harvested following application of 200 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. It was greater than the yield of plants that were not fertilized with zinc and those fertilized with 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil, by 6.2%, 12.0% and 19.2%, respectively.
Application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 significantly reduced yield by 10.9% in comparison with the control treatment and by 16.1% and 6.0% compared to the yield following application of 200 and 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Yield was not significantly affected by application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil, but it was somewhat higher than in the control treatment.
All of the organic materials increased the yield of cocksfoot. Significantly the highest yields were obtained following application of chicken manure and cattle manure. They were 52.6% and 50.0% higher, respectively, than the yield obtained from the control treatment and 13.6% and 11.7% greater than the yield following application of spent mushroom substrate.
The cocksfoot yield decreased in successive years of the study. In the second and third year it was 62.1% and 46.0% of the yield in the first year.
Application of organic fertilizers, irrespective of their origin, did not reduce the negative impact of application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil on the yield of the grass. The negative effect of this amount of zinc on the yield of the plant was also shown to be significant only in the first year after its application.
The effect of various amounts of zinc and organic materials in the soil on the yield of cocksfoot was confirmed by the tolerance indices—the effect of increasing application of zinc in combination with various organic fertilizers (Zn/Org) and the effect of various organic fertilizers in combination with increasing application of zinc (Org/Zn) (Table 3 and Table 4). Values of these indices smaller or greater than 1 indicate that the effect of the factor on plants is negative or positive, respectively, while values close to 1 indicate a lack of effect.
Application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil significantly reduced the Zn/Org tolerance index in the first and third year of cocksfoot cultivation. This index was increased by spent mushroom substrate. The Zn/Org tolerance index was not found to be significantly influenced by the application of cattle manure or chicken manure, nor did it differ in different years of the study.
The Org/Zn tolerance index was higher following application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil than in the control treatment and after application of 200 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. It was highest following the application of cattle manure and chicken manure, which confirms the positive effect of these fertilizers on cocksfoot, expressed as its yield. The Org/Zn tolerance index was the same in the second and third years of the study, but significantly lower than in the first year.
Application of increasing amounts of zinc increased its content in the cocksfoot biomass (Table 5). Significantly the highest content of the metal was found in the plants harvested following application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. It was 232.0%, 53.9% and 27.4% higher, respectively, than the content in plants from the control treatment and those fertilized with 200 and 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Application of all organic materials decreased the content of zinc in the test plant. Significantly the lowest content of zinc was noted following application of cattle manure and spent mushroom substrate. In successive years of the study, the zinc content in the biomass of cocksfoot decreased. In the second and third year it was 14.6% and 52.5% lower, respectively, than in the first year. All application rates of zinc increased its uptake by cocksfoot, calculated as the average from the three years of the study 3 (Table 6), as well as the total uptake in the three-year cycle (Table 7). On average in the three-year cycle, following application of 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil, the plants accumulated 145.3%, 163.2% and 208.3% more of this metal than plants from the control treatment. Total zinc uptake during the three years of the study was highest following application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Following application of cattle manure, chicken manure and spent mushroom substrate, zinc uptake by cocksfoot was higher than in the control treatment. The most zinc was accumulated by plants fertilized with chicken manure. Zinc uptake decreased in successive years of the study, and in the second and third year of the study it was only 54.8% and 23.5% as high as in the first year.
In addition, the effect of increasing application of zinc and application of organic fertilizers on zinc accumulation in the biomass of the grass was shown to vary in successive years of the study. In the third year of the study, zinc uptake by plants was similar following application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. In this year of the study, the uptake of zinc after the application of 600 mg of Zn was higher than in the control object and after the application of 200 mg of Zn. In the third year of the study, application of various organic fertilizers had no effect on the accumulation of zinc in cocksfoot.
Application of increasing amounts of zinc decreased its bioaccumulation factor in the test plant (Table 8). It was significantly the lowest for the plants grown following application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. The bioaccumulation factor of zinc in cocksfoot was not affected by chicken manure or spent mushroom substrate, but was reduced by the application of cattle manure.
The bioaccumulation factor of zinc in cocksfoot was similar in the first and second years of the study and did not exceed 1. In the third year, it was significantly lower.
Correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between the zinc application rate and its content in and uptake by cocksfoot. A significant correlation between zinc content in the plant and its accumulation was noted as well (Table 9).

4. Discussion

The yield and chemical composition of plants depend not only on the soil content of macroelements but on that of microelements and trace elements as well [32,33,34]. Microelements perform very important physiological functions in plants, taking part in metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates, and sugars. They are also activators of enzymatic reactions. Important microelements for plant nutrition include zinc [35,36]. Deficiencies of this element are a major problem around the world, but in soil contaminated by mining and metallurgical activity, soil fertilized with wastewater sludge, and urban and suburban soils anthropogenically enriched with zinc, it can have toxic effects on plants [37,38,39]. In the present study, cocksfoot responded with a significant increase in yield to the application of 200 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil and with a small decrease following the application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. A significant decrease in yield followed the application of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. The Zn/Org tolerance index was also reduced following the application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. A stimulating effect of soil application of zinc in the form of ZnSO4 × 7H2O at rates of 15, 30 and 45 kg of fertilizer per ha−1 on maize yield was reported by Liu et al. [40]. However, these levels of application were much lower per 1 kg of soil than in the present study. Ryegrass yield reduction following zinc application was demonstrated by Zalewska [41]. In a pot experiment, the author tested zinc application rates from 25 to 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil and found that even the smallest dose decreased the yield of the grass when it was grown on sand, but in the case of cultivation on sandy clay only the highest application rate caused decreased yield. Baran [42] demonstrated that zinc had a negative effect on maize. In a pot experiment, the author applied zinc in the form of an aqueous solution of ZnSO4 × 7H2O in the amount of 0, 50, 250 and 750 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil and observed a decrease in maize yield following application of just 50 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. Chaney [43] notes that zinc toxicity thresholds marked in leaves depend on the species and even the variety of the plant. No information describing the toxicity level of zinc in soil for grasses has been found in the scientific literature. In an experiment by Long et al. [44] the threshold of toxicity of this metal was 413 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil for Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.), 224 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil for pok choi (Brassica chinensis L.), and 272 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil for celery (Apium graveolens L.).
The bioavailability of zinc for plants depends in part on its total content in the soil, the amount and type of organic matter. High content of organic matter can limit zinc bioavailability due to adsorption by organic ligands [11]. At the same time, application of organic fertilizers increases soil fertility, which increases crop yield [45]. In the present study, all of the organic materials increased the yield of cocksfoot. The best effect on yield and the highest Org/Zn tolerance index were obtained following application of chicken manure and cattle manure, which may be linked to their chemical composition and the C:N ratio. Varied effects of organic fertilizers depending on their chemical composition were obtained in fertilization of grassland by Štýbnarová et al. [46] and by Tong et al. [47].
Application of spent mushroom substrate increased the Zn/Org tolerance index, which may indicate a minor protective effect counteracting the negative effect of high levels of zinc on cocksfoot.
The content of zinc in grasses is an important indicator of the fodder value of hay. Both a deficiency and a surplus of zinc in feed adversely affect the health of animals, especially ruminants, which are among the most sensitive to this metal [48,49]. Zinc content above 100 mg Zn·kg−1 DW in feed can be harmful to animals due to various interactions.
As the amount of zinc applied to the soil was increased, its amount in the biomass of cocksfoot increased as well. In the first year of the study, the average content of the metal in the grass following its application, irrespective of the amount applied, was greater than 100 mg Zn·kg−1 DW. In the second year of the study, this was the case only following application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil. In the cocksfoot harvested in the third year of the study, the content of zinc did not exceed 100 mg Zn·kg−1 DW. An increase in zinc content in plants grown on soil contaminated with this metal was obtained by Mishra et al. [50]. Chaney [43] reports that symptoms of zinc toxicity most often appear at concentrations of 300 mg Zn·kg−1 DW in the aerial parts of plants, although some plants show symptoms of toxicity at concentrations of more than 100 Zn·kg−1 DW. According to Marschner [23], the zinc content in leaves exceeding the value of 300–600 mg Zn·kg−1 DM is a toxic amount for plants. Research by Broadley et al. [37] shows that toxicity symptoms often make themselves evident at leaf Zn concentrations higher than 300 mg·kg−1 DM. The physiology of Zn phytotoxicity in leaves is complicated, resulting from Zn interference in chlorophyll biosynthesis, and other biochemical reactions.
While none of the organic fertilizers used in the experiment mitigated the negative effect of 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil on the yield of cocksfoot, they did reduce its content of zinc. Its lowest content was noted following the application of cattle manure and spent mushroom substrate. This indicates potential binding and immobilization of zinc by organic matter applied to the soil together with the metal. Binding of zinc by organic matter has been reported by Fan et al. [51], who showed that soil organic matter is the main factor determining sequestration of heavy metals in the soil.
The efficiency of accumulation of heavy metals in plants can be assessed by means of the bioaccumulation factor [52]. The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) can be used to describe active transport of metals from the environment to plants and animals via metabolism [53]. According to Netty al. [54], a bioaccumulation factor of 1–10 indicates a hyperaccumulator plant, a value of 0.1–1 indicates a moderate accumulator plant, a value of 0.01–0.1 indicates a low accumulator plant, and a value of <0.01 indicates a non-accumulator plant. In the present study, the bioaccumulation factor of zinc in cocksfoot ranged from 0.092 to 0.808, which indicates moderate accumulation. In an experiment by Łukowski et al. [30], the bioaccumulation factor of zinc in fodder grasses ranged from 0.07 to 1.55. Baran and Wieczorek [55] obtained values for the factor ranging from 0.26 to 1.01 in monocotyledonous plants (on average 0.63) and from 0.41 to 0.89 in dicotyledonous plants (on average 0.83). In a study by Aladesanmi et al. [56], the bioaccumulation factor of zinc in maize grown on soil contaminated with this metal ranged from 0.011 to 0.99. Klatka et al. [29] found that the value of this index also depends on the species of plant. As the level of zinc application increased, its bioaccumulation factor in cocksfoot significantly decreased. This may indicate that plants have mechanisms counteracting excessive uptake of zinc. According to Emamverdian et al. [57], a key element of these mechanisms is chelation of zinc through the formation of a metal complex of phytochelatins or metallothionein at the intra- and intercellular levels. This is followed by the removal of zinc ions from susceptible sites or sequestration of the ligand-zinc complex in the vacuoles.
Cattle manure showed a protective effect against accumulation of zinc, decreasing its bioaccumulation in the grass. This confirms the hypothesis that the organic matter contained in it binds the metal [51].

5. Conclusions

Following soil application of zinc at 200, 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil, the lowest amount increased the yield of cocksfoot, while the highest level reduced it. The small reduction in yield following the application of 400 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil indicates a threshold level of zinc toxicity for cocksfoot. The minor and major negative effect of application of 400 and 600 mg Zn·kg−1 of soil, respectively, are confirmed by the Zn/Org tolerance indices. Spent mushroom substrate increased the Zn/Org tolerance index, while cattle manure and chicken manure increased the Org/Zn tolerance index, confirming both the positive effect of these fertilizers on yield and their protective effect against high levels of zinc.
Increasing zinc application rates increased its content in and uptake by the grass, while reducing the bioaccumulation factor of this heavy metal. All of the organic materials reduced the content of zinc in the biomass of the test plant and increased the total uptake. Cattle manure also reduced the bioaccumulation factor of zinc in the plants, which is indicative of its protective effect.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.K. and P.K.; methodology, B.K., P.K. and A.W.; resources, B.K., P.K., D.J. and A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, B.K., P.K., A.W. and K.P.; writing—review and editing, B.K., P.K. and A.W.; visualization, A.W. and B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grants number 314/12/S, 105/14/MN, and 33/20/B.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Hughes, H.R. Heavy metals and the environment: An introduction. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 1985, 15, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjou, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Heavy Metal Toxicity and the Environment. In Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology; Luch, A., Ed.; Experientia Supplementum; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2012; Volume 101, pp. 133–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Rutkowska, B.; Szulc, W.; Bomze, K.; Gozdowski, D.; Spychaj-Fabisiak, K. Soil factors affecting solubility and mobility of zinc in contaminated soils. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 1687–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Xie, Y.; Fan, J.; Zhu, W.; Amombo, E.; Lou, Y.; Chen, L.; Fu, J. Effect of heavy metals pollution on soil microbial diversity and bermudagrass genetic variation. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Briffa, J.; Sinagra, E.; Blundell, R. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kuziemska, B.; Wysokiński, A.; Trębicka, J. The effect of different copper doses and organic fertilisation on soil’s enzymatic activity. Plant Soil Environ. 2020, 66, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sall, M.L.; Diaw, A.K.D.; Gningue-Sall, D.; Efremova Aaron, S.; Aaron, J.J. Toxic heavy metals: Impact on the environment and human health, and treatment with conducting organic polymers, a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 29927–29942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jain, D.; Kour, R.; Bhojiya, A.A.; Meena, R.H.; Singh, A.; Mohanty, S.R.; Ameta, K.D. Zinc tolerant plant growth promoting bacteria alleviates phytotoxic effects of zinc on maize through zinc immobilization. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Możdżeń, K.; Barabasz-Krasny, B.; Puła, J.; Lepiarczyk, A. Impact of compounds of cadmium and zinc in early stages of growth of radish (Raphanus sativus L. var. sativus). Fragm. Agron. 2017, 34, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kuziemska, B.; Wysokiński, A.; Klej, P. Effect of different zinc doses and organic fertilization on soil’s enzymatic activity. J. Elem. 2020, 25, 108–91099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sadeghzadeh, B. A review of zinc nutrition and plant breeding. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 90–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Vodyanitskii, Y.N. Zinc forms in soils (Review of publications). Eurasian Soil Sci. 2010, 43, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Recena, R.; García-López, A.M.; Delgado, A. Zinc uptake by plants as affected by fertilization with Zn sulfate, phosphorus availability, and soil properties. Agronomy 2021, 11, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hart, J.J.; Norvell, W.A.; Welch, R.M.; Sullivan, L.A.; Kochian, L.V. Characterization of zinc uptake, binding, and translocation in intact seedlings of bread and durum wheat cultivars. Plant Physiol. 1998, 118, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Alloway, B.J. Micronutrients and crop production: An introduction. In Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production; Alloway, B.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bonnet, M.; Camarès, O.; Veisseire, P. Effects of zinc and influence of Acremonium lolii on growth parameters, chlorophyll a fluorescence and antioxidant enzyme activities of ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. cv Apollo). J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 945–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nielsen, F.H. History of zinc in agriculture. Adv. Nutr. 2012, 3, 783–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Cabot, C.; Martos, S.; Llugany, M.; Gallego, B.; Tolrà, R.; Poschenrieder, C. A role for zinc in plant defense against pathogens and herbivores. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hacisalihoglu, G. Zinc (Zn): The last nutrient in the alphabet and shedding light on Zn efficiency for the future of crop production under suboptimal Zn. Plants 2020, 9, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Umair Hassan, M.; Aamer, M.; Umer Chattha, M.; Haiying, T.; Shahzad, B.; Barbanti, L.; Nawaz, M.; Rasheed, A.; Afzal, A.; Liu, Y.; et al. The critical role of zinc in plants facing the drought stress. Agriculture 2020, 10, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tsonev, T.; Lidon, F.J.C. Zinc in plants—An overview. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2012, 24, 322–333. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267030914 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  22. Hafeez, B.; Khanif, Y.M.; Saleem, M. Role of zinc in plant nutrition—A Review. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2013, 3, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marschner, H. Mineral. Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1995; ISBN 9780080571874. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cakmak, I. Possible roles of zinc in protecting plant cells from damage by reactive oxygen species. New Phytol. 2020, 146, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Henriques, A.R.; Chalfun, A.-J.; Aarts, M.G. Strategies to increase zinc deficiency tolerance and homeostasis in plants. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 24, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Påhlsson, A.B. Toxicity of heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb) to vascular plants. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1989, 47, 287–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sagardoy, R.; Morales, F.; López-Millán, A.F.; Abadía, A.; Abadía, J. Effects of zinc toxicity on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants grown in hydroponics. Plant Biol. 2009, 11, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kwiatkowska-Malina, J. Functions of organic matter in polluted soils: The effect of organic amendments on phytoavailability of heavy metals. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 123, 542–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Klatka, S.; Malec, M.; Kruk, E.; Ryczek, M. Evaluation of possibility of natural utilisation of coal mine waste used for surface levelling. Acta Agroph. 2017, 24, 253–262. [Google Scholar]
  30. Łukowski, A.; Wiater, J.; Dymko, A. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in forage grasses. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Technol. 2017, 18, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nicholls, M.K.; McNeilly, T. Sensitivity of rooting and tolerance to copper in agrostis tenuis sibth. New Phytol. 1979, 83, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. White, P.J.; Brown, P.H. Plant nutrition for sustainable development and global health. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 1073–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pogrzeba, M.; Rusinowski, S.; Krzyżak, J. Macroelements and heavy metals content in energy crops cultivated on contaminated soil under different fertilization-case studies on autumn harvest. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 12096–12106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Wierzbowska, J.; Sienkiewicz, S.; Żarczyński, P.; Krzebietke, S. Environmental application of ash from incinerated biomass. Agronomy 2020, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Sharma, A.; Patni, B.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Zinc—An indispensable micronutrient. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013, 19, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Balafrej, H.; Bogusz, D.; Triqui, Z.E.A.; Guedira, A.; Bendaou, N.; Smouni, A.; Fahr, M. Zinc hyperaccumulation in plants: A review. Plants 2020, 9, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Broadley, M.R.; White, P.J.; Hammond, J.P.; Zelko, I.; Lux, A. Zinc in plants. New Phytol. 2007, 173, 677–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Szopiński, M.; Sitko, K.; Gieroń, Ż.; Rusinowski, S.; Corso, M.; Hermans, C.; Verbruggen, N.; Małkowski, E. Toxic effects of Cd and Zn on the photosynthetic apparatus of the Arabidopsis halleri and Arabidopsis arenosa Pseudo-Metallophytes. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kaur, H.; Garg, N. Zinc toxicity in plants: A review. Planta 2021, 253, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, H.; Gan, W.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, P. Effects of zinc fertilizer rate and application method on photosynthetic characteristics and grain yield of summer maize. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 16, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zalewska, M. Response of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) to soil contamination with zinc. J. Elem. 2012, 17, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baran, A. Assessment of zea mays sensitivity to toxic content of zinc in soil. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chaney, R.L. Zinc phytotoxicity. In Zinc in Soils and Plants, Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences; Robson, A.D., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; Volume 55, pp. 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Long, X.X.; Yang, X.E.; Ni, W.Z.; Ye, Z.Q.; He, Z.L.; Calvert, D.V.; Stoffella, J.P. Assessing zinc thresholds for phytotoxicity and potential dietary toxicity in selected vegetable crops. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2003, 34, 1421–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mahmood, F.; Khan, I.; Ashraf, U.; Shahzad, T.; Hussain, S.; Shahid, M.; Abid, M.; Ullah, S. Effects of organic and inorganic manures on maize and their residual impact on soil physico-chemical properties. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Štýbnarová, M.; Mičová, P.; Fiala, K.; Karabcová, H.; Látal, O.; Pozdíšek, J. Effect of organic fertilizers on botanical composition of grassland, herbage yield and quality. Agriculture 2014, 60, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Tong, Z.; Quan, G.; Wan, L.; He, F.; Li, X. The effect of fertilizers on biomass and biodiversity on a semi-arid grassland of Northern China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Miller, W.J. Zinc nutrition of cattle: A review. J. Dairy Sci. 1970, 53, 1123–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hill, G.M.; Shannon, M.C. Copper and zinc nutritional issues for agricultural animal production. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2019, 188, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mishra, B.; McDonald, L.M.; Roy, M.; Lanzirotti, A.; Myneni, S. Uptake and speciation of zinc in edible plants grown in smelter contaminated soils. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Fan, T.T.; Wang, Y.J.; Li, C.B.; He, J.Z.; Gao, J.; Zhou, D.M.; Friedman, S.P.; Sparks, D.L. Effect of organic matter on sorption of Zn on soil: Elucidation by wien effect measurements and EXAFS spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 2931–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gawryluk, A.; Wyłupek, T.; Wolański, P. Assessment of Cu, Pb and Zn content in selected species of grasses and in the soil of the roadside embankment. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 9841–9852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Proc, K.; Bulak, P.; Kaczor, M.; Bieganowski, A. A new approach to quantifying bioaccumulation of elements in biological processes. Biology 2021, 10, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Netty, S.; Wardiyati, T.; Maghfoer, M.D.; Handayanto, E. Bioaccumulation of nickel by five wild plant species on nickel contaminated soil. J. Eng. IOSR-JEN 2013, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Baran, A.; Wieczorek, J. Content of zinc in the different elements of the environment in zone of potential impact galvanizing. Proc. ECOpole 2012, 6, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aladesanmi, O.T.; Oroboade, J.G.; Osisiogu, C.P.; Osewole, A.O. Bioaccumulation factor of selected heavy metals in Zea mays. J. Health Pollut. 2019, 9, 191207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Emamverdian, A.; Ding, Y.; Mokhberdoran, F.; Xie, Y. Heavy metal stress and some mechanisms of plant defense response. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 756120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition of organic materials used in pot experiment.
Table 1. Chemical composition of organic materials used in pot experiment.
Organic MaterialsDry Matter DM
(%)		CorgNtotC:NPKCaMgSZnCuPbCdCrNi
g·kg−1 DMg·kg−1 DMmg·kg−1 DM
Cattle
manure		19.6405.123.9016.9:15.3815.2810.042.903.0760.284.987.480.2488.3211.16
Chicken manure (layers)27.8167.313.5012.4:18.449.3213.722.683.12190.8041.6011.650.4124.9632.14
Mushroom substrate30.4319.324.2013.2:16.2217.4847.323.1225.08117.5014.582.970.0722.1911.12
Table
Table 2. Cocksfoot yield (g·pot−1).
Table 2. Cocksfoot yield (g·pot−1).
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Without Organic Fertilization1st15.2018.0912.9411.5614.49A
2nd12.4411.119.0512.6511.31A
3rd9.158.367.468.088.26A
mean12.26BC12.52C9.82A10.76AB11.34a
Cattle manure1st25.4029.4026.5521.1025.61C
2nd14.5015.2812.8412.5613.80B
3rd12.3611.9810.5611.6511.64B
mean17.42BC18.89C16.65AB15.10A17.02c
Chicken manure1st26.7828.6026.5422.9226.21C
2nd16.2516.8215.1014.7815.74C
3rd10.1511.648.659.489.98A
mean17.73BC19.02C16.76AB15.73A17.31c
Mushroom substrate1st21.5025.2321.8817.5621.54B
2nd13.0611.3316.0614.3813.71B
3rd10.4911.179.9610.2210.46AB
mean15.02AB15.91B15.97B14.05A15.24b
Mean for Zn dose15.61b16.58c14.80b13.91a15.23
Mean for years1st22.22B25.33C21.98B18.29A21.95c
2nd14.06A13.64A13.26A13.59A13.64b
3rd10.54AB10.79B9.16A9.86AB10.09a
a,b,c—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different. A,B,C—means for the interaction with different letters in the rows of the table are significantly different.
Table
Table 3. Zinc tolerance index illustrating the effect of increasing levels of zinc in combi-nation with application of various organic fertilizers—Zn/Org.
Table 3. Zinc tolerance index illustrating the effect of increasing levels of zinc in combi-nation with application of various organic fertilizers—Zn/Org.
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
200400600
Without organic fertilization1st1.190.850.760.93
2nd0.900.741.030.89
3rd0.920.820.900.88
mean1.000.810.900.90a
Cattle manure1st1.161.050.831.01
2nd1.070.900.890.95
3rd0.990.860.950.93
mean1.070.930.890.96ab
Chicken manure1st1.070.990.860.97
2nd1.040.940.910.96
3rd1.170.880.941.00
mean1.100.940.910.98ab
Mushroom substrate1st1.171.020.821.00
2nd0.881.251.111.08
3rd1.070.960.981.00
mean1.041.080.971.03b
Mean for Zn dose1.05b0.94a0.92a0.97
Mean for years1st1.15C0.98B0.82A0.98a
2nd0.97A0.96A0.99A0.97a
3rd1.04B0.88A0.94AB0.95a
a,b—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different. A,B,C—means for the interaction with different letters in the rows of the table are significantly different.
Table
Table 4. Tolerance index illustrating the effect of various organic fertilizers in combination with increasing levels of zinc—Org/Zn.
Table 4. Tolerance index illustrating the effect of various organic fertilizers in combination with increasing levels of zinc—Org/Zn.
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Cattle manure1st1.671.632.061.821.80B
2nd1.171.391.440.991.25A
3rd1.351.481.421.461.43B
mean1.401.501.641.431.49b
Chicken manure1st1.771.592.061.991.85B
2nd1.331.521.681.171.42A
3rd1.131.421.161.181.22A
mean1.411.511.631.441.50b
Mushroom substrate1st1.421.401.691.521.51A
2nd1.071.021.811.151.26A
3rd1.151.361.351.281.29A
mean1.211.261.621.321.35a
Mean for Zn dose1.34a1.42a1.63b1.40a1.45
Mean for years1st1.62A1.54A1.94B1.78AB1.72b
2nd1.19A1.31A1.64B1.10A1.31a
3rd1.21A1.42A1.31A1.31A1.31a
a,b—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different. A,B—means for the interaction with different letters in the rows of the table are significantly different.
Table
Table 5. The content of zinc in cocksfoot (mg Zn kg−1 DM).
Table 5. The content of zinc in cocksfoot (mg Zn kg−1 DM).
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose Introduced into the Soil [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Without Organic Fertilization1st35.26117.85140.85190.88121.21
2nd38.6395.80120.60155.10102.53
3rd30.3548.1663.9081.0455.86
mean34.7587.27108.45142.3493.20c
Cattle Manure1st35.9892.14110.86146.2096.30
2nd39.5582.6094.80112.4082.34
3rd30.8639.8251.4660.4845.66
mean35.4671.5285.71106.3674.76a
Chicken Manure1st38.14106.20128.14162.50108.75
2nd41.5091.46106.42132.5192.97
3rd33.4046.9858.4076.8453.91
mean37.6881.5597.65123.9585.21b
Mushroom Substrate1st37.7495.89118.17154.55101.59
2nd46.3186.4398.35119.6187.68
3rd31.2543.3152.0865.3347.99
mean38.4375.2189.53113.1679.09a
Mean for Zn Dose36.58a78.89b95.34c121.45d83.06
Mean for Years1st36.78103.02124.51163.53106.96c
2nd41.5089.07105.04129.9091.38b
3rd31.4744.5756.4070.9250.85a
a,b,c—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different.
Table
Table 6. Zn uptake by cocksfoot (mg Zn·pot−1).
Table 6. Zn uptake by cocksfoot (mg Zn·pot−1).
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Without Organic Fertilization1st0.5352.1371.8182.2111.675A
2nd0.4821.0621.0981.9721.154A
3rd0.2810.4020.4780.6530.454A
mean0.432A1.200B1.131B1.612C1.094a
Cattle Manure1st0.9152.7172.9463.0672.411C
2nd0.5701.2571.2241.4361.122A
3rd0.3830.4790.5460.7090.529A
mean0.623A1.484B1.572BC1.737C1.354b
Chicken manure1st1.0243.0283.4033.7192.793D
2nd0.6791.5391.5961.9561.442B
3rd0.3370.5480.5070.7280.530A
mean0.680A1.705B1.835B2.134C1.588c
Mushroom substrate1st0.8102.4152.5772.7082.127B
2nd0.6060.9761.5751.7151.218A
3rd0.3270.4830.5170.6680.498A
mean0.581A1.291B1.556C1.697C1.281b
Mean for Zn dose0.579a1.420b1.524b1.785c1.329
Mean for years1st0.821A2.574B2.686B2.926C2.252c
2nd0.584A1.209B1.373B1.770C1.234a
3rd0.332A0.478A0.512AB0.689B0.530b
a,b,c—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different. A,B,C,D—means for the interaction with different letters in the rows of the table are significantly different.
Table
Table 7. Total Zn uptake by cocksfoot at the sum for three years (mg Zn·pot−1).
Table 7. Total Zn uptake by cocksfoot at the sum for three years (mg Zn·pot−1).
Organic FertilizerZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Without organic fertilization1.297A3.601B3.391B4.837C3.282a
Cattle manure1.863A4.453B4.716BC5.211C4.062b
Chicken manure2.040A5.115B5.505B6.402C4.765c
Mushroom substrate1.742A3.874B4.669C5.091C3.844b
Mean1.737a4.263b4.571b5.385c3.988
a,b,c—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different. A,B,C—means for the interaction with different letters in the rows of the table are significantly different.
Table
Table 8. Zinc bioaccumulation factor in cocksfoot.
Table 8. Zinc bioaccumulation factor in cocksfoot.
Organic FertilizerYearZn Dose [mg·kg−1 of Soil]Mean
0200400600
Without Organic Fertilization1st0.6230.4590.3080.2910.420
2nd0.6830.3730.3640.2360.389
3rd0.5360.1880.1400.1230.247
mean0.6140.3400.2380.2170.352b
Cattle Manure1st0.6320.3590.2430.2230.364
2nd0.6950.3220.2070.1710.349
3rd0.5420.1550.1130.0920.226
mean0.6230.2780.1880.1620.313a
Chicken Manure1st0.6480.4100.2790.2470.396
2nd0.7050.3530.2320.2010.373
3rd0.5670.1210.1270.1170.248
mean0.6400.3150.2130.1880.339b
Mushroom Substrate1st0.6580.3730.2580.2350.381
2nd0.8080.3360.2150.1820.385
3rd0.5450.1680.1140.0990.232
mean0.6700.2920.1960.1720.333ab
Mean for Zn Dose0.637d0.306c0.208b0.185a0.334
Mean for Years1st0.6400.4000.2720.2490.390b
2nd0.7230.3460.2300.1980.374b
3rd0.5480.1730.1230.1080.238a
a,b,c,d—means for investigated factors with different letters (in the columns for organics fertilization and for years but in the row for zinc doses) are significantly different.
Table
Table 9. Linear correlation coefficients between selected properties of cocksfoot.
Table 9. Linear correlation coefficients between selected properties of cocksfoot.
SpecificationCocksfood YieldZn ContentZn Uptake
Zn Dose−0.290.95 *0.85 *
Cocksfood Yield−−0.390.14
Zn Content−−0.84 *
* the value of correlation coefficient are important.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuziemska, B.; Klej, P.; Wysokinski, A.; Jaremko, D.; Pakuła, K. Yielding and Bioaccumulation of Zinc by Cocksfoot under Conditions of Different Doses of This Metal and Organic Fertilization. Agronomy 2022, 12, 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030686

AMA Style

Kuziemska B, Klej P, Wysokinski A, Jaremko D, Pakuła K. Yielding and Bioaccumulation of Zinc by Cocksfoot under Conditions of Different Doses of This Metal and Organic Fertilization. Agronomy. 2022; 12(3):686. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030686

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuziemska, Beata, Paulina Klej, Andrzej Wysokinski, Dawid Jaremko, and Krzysztof Pakuła. 2022. "Yielding and Bioaccumulation of Zinc by Cocksfoot under Conditions of Different Doses of This Metal and Organic Fertilization" Agronomy 12, no. 3: 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030686

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop