Paper · 2024 · Plants

Phytoremediation Potential of Flax Grown on Multimetal Contaminated Soils: A Field Experiment

Danai Kotoula; Eleni G. Papazoglou; Garifalia Economou; et al.

11
claims
17
verbatim quotes
3
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the phytoremediation potential of fiber flax (Linum usitatissimatum L., var. Calista) cultivated in a soil contaminated with multiple metals, under real field conditions. A two-year (2022 and 2023) field experiment was conducted in a site contaminated with elevated concentrations of Cd, Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn due to mining and metallurgical activities. Three different nitrogen fertilization levels were tested (N0: 0 kg N ha−1, N1: 30 kg N ha−1, N2: 60 kg N ha−1), and both spring and winter sowings were conducted. At full maturity, growth parameters and yields were measured. The phytoremediation potential of flax was assessed in terms of the metal concentrations in the above-ground biomass and of the metal uptake (i.e., the potential removal of the soil metals in g ha−1 and per year). Flax demonstrated a shorter growth cycle, with shorter and thicker plants and higher yields when sown in spring compared to winter sowing. Plant growth and productivity were not evidently influenced by additional nitrogen fertilization during plant growth. The cadmium bioaccumulation factor was 1.06, indicating that flax accumulates this metal. For Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn, the corresponding values were 0.0, 0.04, 0.004, and 0.02, suggesting that this crop excludes these metals. The order of the higher uptake in plant tissues was as follows: Zn > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni. In conclusion, flax demonstrated tolerance to heavy metals in the soil, effectively supporting soil restoration through cultivation. Additionally, flax showed potential as a cadmium accumulator while excluding nickel, copper, lead, and zinc.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spring sowing shortened the flax growth cycle relative to winter sowing.

Treatment
sown in springe0
Outcome
growth cyclee0
Direction
shortere0
Comparator
winter sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Flax demonstrated a shorter growth cycle, with shorter and thicker plants and higher yields when sown in spring compared to winter sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–965 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spring sowing produced shorter and thicker flax plants than winter sowing.

Treatment
sown in springe0
Outcome
shorter and thicker plantse0
Direction
shortere0
Comparator
winter sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Flax demonstrated a shorter growth cycle, with shorter and thicker plants and higher yields when sown in spring compared to winter sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–965 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spring sowing increased flax yield relative to winter sowing.

Treatment
sown in springe0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
winter sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Flax demonstrated a shorter growth cycle, with shorter and thicker plants and higher yields when sown in spring compared to winter sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–965 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Additional nitrogen did not evidently influence flax growth and productivity.

Treatment
additional nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
Plant growth and productivitye0
Direction
not evidently influencede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Plant growth and productivity were not evidently influenced by additional nitrogen fertilization during plant growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1083 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax had a cadmium bioaccumulation factor of 1.06.

Outcome
cadmium bioaccumulation factore0
Value
1.06e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cadmium bioaccumulation factor was 1.06, indicating that flax accumulates this metal.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1084–1173 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax had a Ni bioaccumulation factor of 0.0.

Outcome
Nie0
Value
0.0e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn, the corresponding values were 0.0, 0.04, 0.004, and 0.02, suggesting that this crop excludes these metals.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1304 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax had a Cu bioaccumulation factor of 0.04.

Outcome
Cue0
Value
0.04e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn, the corresponding values were 0.0, 0.04, 0.004, and 0.02, suggesting that this crop excludes these metals.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1304 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax had a Pb bioaccumulation factor of 0.004.

Outcome
Pbe0
Value
0.004e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn, the corresponding values were 0.0, 0.04, 0.004, and 0.02, suggesting that this crop excludes these metals.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1304 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax had a Zn bioaccumulation factor of 0.02.

Outcome
Zne0
Value
0.02e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For Ni, Cu, Pb, and Zn, the corresponding values were 0.0, 0.04, 0.004, and 0.02, suggesting that this crop excludes these metals.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1304 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flax tissue metal uptake ranked Zn above Pb above Cd above Cu above Ni.

Outcome
uptake in plant tissuese0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The order of the higher uptake in plant tissues was as follows: Zn > Pb > Cd > Cu > Ni.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1392 · show in text ↑
t0

“Flax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–34 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors concluded that flax tolerated soil heavy metals.

Outcome
tolerance to heavy metals in the soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Linum usitatissimum
Linum usitatissimum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In conclusion, flax demonstrated tolerance to heavy metals in the soil, effectively supporting soil restoration through cultivation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1393–1525 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Linum usitatissimum (flax)Results differ

95 papers: 84 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 84 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

91 papers more in this group

See all 95 papers →

sowing time · growth · Linum usitatissimum (flax)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

sowing time · yield · Linum usitatissimum (flax)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 13 positive, 7 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.