The effects of simulated acid rain and cadmium-containing atmospheric fine particulate matter on the pakchoi (Brassica campestris. L) seedlings growth and physiology

Figures & data

Table 1. Experiments design

Treatments	pH	PM2.5-Cd (μg·m^−3)
CK	7.0	0
T1	7.0	150
T2	7.0	300
T3	7.0	500
T4	5.5	0
T5	5.5	150
T6	5.5	300
T7	5.5	500
T8	3.5	0
T9	3.5	150
T10	3.5	300
T11	3.5	500

Table 2. Effects of AR and PM_2.5-Cd on growth of pakchoi

AR(pH)	PM2.5-Cd (μg·m^−3)	SL (cm)	RL(cm)	FW(g)	DW (g)	WT (%)
7	0	15.60 ± 0.96bcd	11.80 ± 1.31ab	6.10 ± 0.37bcd	0.61 ± 0.03cdef	90.00 ± 6.01a
	150	17.10 ± 0.36ab	12.30 ± 1.37ab	6.35 ± 0.43ab	0.69 ± 0.05ab	89.13 ± 6.18a
	300	17.30 ± 1.22ab	12.60 ± 0.36a	6.68 ± 0.68a	0.74 ± 0.05a	88.92 ± 5.92a
	500	16.20 ± 1.41abc	11.90 ± 0.95ab	6.11 ± 0.13bcd	0.62 ± 0.04cde	89.85 ± 5.84a
5.5	0	16.50 ± 0.56abc	12.70 ± 0.35a	6.22 ± 0.16bc	0.67 ± 0.03bc	89.23 ± 6.81a
	150	17.00 ± 1.56ab	12.60 ± 0.70a	6.14 ± 0.18bcd	0.64 ± 0.04bcd	89.58 ± 3.47a
	300	18.10 ± 1.31a	11.90 ± 0.96ab	6.11 ± 0.09bcd	0.61 ± 0.04cdef	90.02 ± 7.35a
	500	15.50 ± 1.18bcd	11.60 ± 1.28ab	5.82 ± 0.15 cd	0.56 ± 0.02ef	90.38 ± 3.57a
3.5	0	14.60 ± 1.13cde	11.30 ± 0.53abc	6.00 ± 0.09bcd	0.59 ± 0.03def	90.17 ± 4.51a
	150	14.00 ± 1.05de	11.00 ± 2.02abc	5.93 ± 0.12bcd	0.57 ± 0.06def	90.39 ± 4.14a
	300	13.80 ± 0.66de	10.40 ± 0.60bc	5.84 ± 0.19 cd	0.55 ± 0.03ef	90.58 ± 4.28a
	500	13.2 ± 0.95e	9.50 ± 1.25 c	5.54 ± 0.32e	0.54 ± 0.04 f	90.43 ± 5.74a
AR		0.000***	0.001**	0.001**	0.006**	0.968
PM2.5-Cd		0.044*	0.226	0.043*	0.000***	0.633
AR×PM2.5-Cd		0.28	0.74	0.207	0.004**	0.994

Values are means ± standard deviation errors, n = 6. Significantly differences at p < 0.05 were showed with different letter in each column. Significantly at 0.05 levels. *** indicated significant correlation at p < 0.001; ** indicates significant correlation at p < 0.01; * indicated significant correlation at p < 0.05. The same below.

Figure 1. Changes of SPAD value under simulated AR and PM_2.5-Cd treatments.

Figure 2. Changes of the Cd concentrations under different simulated AR and PM_2.5-Cd treatments.

Figure 3. Changes of the foliar MDA content under different simulated AR and PM_2.5-Cd treatments.

Figure 4. Changes of the foliar antioxidant enzymes activities under different simulated AR and PM_2.5-Cd treatments.

Figure 5. Correlations between AR pH, PM_2.5-Cd, SPAD, CdL, MDA content and antioxidant enzyme activities in leaves. CdL, Cd content in leaves.

Figure A1. Response of pakchoi phenotypic under different simulated AR and PM_2.5-Cd treatments.