Zn concentration in Bok Coy (mg kg-1) 0

0

NA Lime Compost

Zn concentration in Bok Coy (mg/kg)

0

NA Lime Compost

Zn concentration in Bok Coy (mg/kg)

0

79

ಃ

ಃΜϖ࿯ǵόӕೀ౛Πβᝆύё๧ڗልکᎋᐚࡋ

΋ǵ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልکᎋ

٬Ҕ 0.05 M EDTA ๧ڗβᝆύё๧ڗልޑ่݀ว౜Ȑკ 22ȑǴόᆅࢂൂ΋܈

షӝబуልᎋޑೀ౛ǴࡼҔҡԪ٠คݤफ़ե 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶฅԶǴ

ࡼҔ୴ޥࡕǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋεठ೿ᡉ๱ଯܭ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊᆶҡԪ ޑೀ౛Ǵ߄ҢࡼҔ୴ޥёቚу 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǴҁࣴز่݀ᆶ߻Γ่

݀࣬ӕ(Madejon et al., 2009; Zeng et al., 2011)ǶࡼҔ୴ޥࡕ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗል ᐚࡋቚуޑচӢёૈࣁǴ0.05 M EDTA ๧ڗᏊё๧ڗрᆶߎឦᗖ่ޑԖᐒ፦ᄊ (Ure 1995)ǴӢԶෳளၨଯᐚࡋޑ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልǶ

ࡼҔҡԪܭబуᎋޑβᝆǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋᡉ๱եܭ҂ࡼҔׯ ؼᏊǶՠࡼҔҡԪܭబуልޑβᝆǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋࠅคᡉ๱फ़եǴ җԜёޕ࣬ၨܭ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልǴࡼҔҡԪჹܭफ़ե 0.05 M EDTA ё๧

ڗᎋᐚࡋਏ݀ၨ٫ǶЬाচӢࣁ pH ॶǴᎋӧ pH ॶଯܭ 6.2 ਔǴԖਏ܄ᡂեǴ ልჹβᝆ pH ॶ߾ၨό௵ག(Cavallaro and McBride, 1978; Martinez and Motto, 2000)ǴΨԖЎ᝘ࡰрబуԖᐒᅹჹβᝆύԖਏᎋޑቹៜၨ pH ॶλ(Yoo and James, 2003)Ƕ܌аࡼҔҡԪࡕǴβᝆ pH ॶගଯǴᎋޑྋှࡋफ़եǴᏤठ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋफ़եǶ

Βǵ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልکᎋ

җ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑ่݀ёว౜Ȑკ 23ȑǴόᆅࢂൂ΋బу܈షӝ బуልکᎋޑβᝆǴࡼҔҡԪёफ़ե 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋǴฅԶࡼҔ

୴ޥคݤफ़ե 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋǴচӢࣁ DTPA ཮๧ڗрᆶԖᐒ፦

ᗖ่ޑልǶ

ࡼҔҡԪܭబуᎋޑβᝆǴ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋࣣᡉ๱եܭ҂ࡼҔ ׯؼᏊǶKhan ᆶ Jones (2009) ࣴزࡼҔҡԪǵᆘޥǵԡݝᆶᕗለΒሓܭᝄख़ԡࢉ

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg)

Cu 0+ Zn 0 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 150 + Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 400 Cu 150 + Zn 400

0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mgkg)

10

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg kg

^-1

)

Cu 0+ Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 75 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 400Cu 150 + Zn 0 Cu 150 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 400 0.05 M EDTA extractable Zn concentration (mg kg

-1

)

0

Fig. 22. 0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg) of different ) )

0.05 M EDTA extractable Zn 0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu

81

different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05. (NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150 = spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg ) )

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg)

Cu 0+ Zn 0 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 150 + Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 400 Cu 150 + Zn 400 0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) ⁰

10

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg)

Cu 0+ Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 75 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 400Cu 150 + Zn 0 Cu 150 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 400 0.005 M DTPA extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) ⁰

20

Fig. 23. 0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg) of different treatments. Values represent mean ² standard deviation (n = 4). Different letters within same each spiked Cu and Zn treatment are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05. (NA = no amendment ; Lime =

) ) 0.005 M DTPA extractable Zn

0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu

83

ޑβᝆǴ٠௖૸ࡼҔׯؼᏊࡕԖਏ܄ߎឦޑໆǶ่݀ᡉҢǴࡼҔҡԪനૈफ़ե 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋǴচӢࣁҡԪکᎋ׎ԋ๯ᎋ᝜ȐZnCO

3

Οǵ0.01 M CaCl

ȑǴ٬ளᎋޑྋှ

ࡋΠफ़(Nriagu, 1984)ˤᆕӝ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልکᎋޑ่݀Ǵёޕ࣬ၨܭ୴ ޥǴࡼҔҡԪёफ़ե 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልکᎋǶ

2

ࡼҔҡԪϷ୴ޥܭబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kg ё

ё๧ڗልکᎋ

ޑβᝆǴࣣёᡉ๱फ़ե 0.01 M CaCl

₂

ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋȐკ 24ȑǶӕኬޑǴࡼҔҡԪϷ୴ޥܭబуᎋޑβᝆǴΨ ёᡉ๱फ़ե 0.01 M CaCl

2

Alloway, 1995

ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋǴচӢёૈࣁȐ1ȑβᝆ pH ॶᆶᅹለਥ

጗ፂΚቚуǴᏤठख़ߎឦکᅹለਥ׎ԋ؈ᐘ(McBride, 1989)Ȑ2ȑ൤֖ᡵ܄ނ፦ޑ ׯؼᏊǴࡼΕβᝆёቚуβᝆጤᡏޑॄႝ಻Ǵ຾Զቚуβᝆಈη֎ߕख़ߎឦǴफ़ եख़ߎឦྋှࡋ(McBride et al. 1997)Ȑ3ȑԖᐒ፦൤֖⇌୷ǵ♐୷ᆶ♏୷Ǵёᆶβ ᝆύޑख़ߎឦ֎ߕᆶᒱӝ( ; Lee et al., 2004)ǶԜѦǴࡼҔ୴ޥکҡԪ ࡕǴልکᎋёૈҗҬඤᄊᙯᡂԋԖᐒ፦่ӝᄊǵᅹለਥ่ӝᄊǵ៓ᒰ่ӝᄊϷූ

Ꭹᄊ(Bhattacharyya et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2009; Mohamed et al., 2010)Ǵ܌а 0.01 M CaCl

₂

Ѥǵᕴᕴ่

ё๧ڗልکᎋޑᐚࡋफ़եǶ

ᆕӝԜΟᅿ๧ڗᏊ๧ڗβᝆύё๧ڗልکᎋޑ่݀ǴεठёᘜયрȐ1ȑࡼҔ ҡԪёफ़ե 0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA Ϸ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልکᎋᐚࡋǴ ځύΞаᎋᐚࡋफ़ե൯ࡋനεȐ2ȑࡼҔ୴ޥёफ़ե 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǴ ٠คݤԖਏफ़ե 0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶࡼҔ୴ޥёफ़ե 0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPAϷ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶᕴࡴԶقǴჹܭफ़եβ ᝆύё๧ڗልکᎋٰᇥǴࡼҔҡԪࢂၨӳޑᒧ᏷Ƕ

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg)

Cu 0+ Zn 0 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 150 + Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 400 Cu 150 + Zn 400 0.01 M CaCl

2

extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg)

0.0

Spiked Cu and Zn concentration (mg/kg)

Cu 0+ Zn 0Cu 0 + Zn 200Cu 0 +Zn 400 Cu 75 + Zn 0Cu 75 + Zn 200Cu 75 + Zn 400Cu 150 + Zn 0 Cu 150 + Zn 200 Cu 150 + Zn 400 0.01 M CaCl

2

extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg)

10

2

extractable Cu and Zn concentration in different treatments.

Values represent mean ² standard deviation (n = 4). Different letters within same each spiked Cu and Zn treatment are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05. (NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; 0.01 M CaCl

2

extractable Zn

0.01 M CaCl

2

extractable Cu

85

ಃ

ಃΜϤ࿯ǵβᝆё๧ڗልکᎋϐ࣬ϕբҔ

΋ǵልል

(΋) 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗል

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊǵࡼҔҡԪᆶࡼҔ୴ޥޑೀ౛Ǵልکᎋࣣ཮ᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋȐ߄ 16ȑǶ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊᆶࡼҔ୴ޥޑೀ౛Ǵልکᎋޑ࣬

ϕբҔჹ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋԖᡉ๱ቹៜǶ

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴ҂బуልޑβᝆǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ٠҂ᒿ๱ᎋ ޑబуᡉ๱΢ϲ܈फ़եǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϟܭ 2.38 - 2.69 mg/kg Ȑ߄ 17ȑǶฅԶǴబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgǴ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋࣣ΢ϲǴልᐚࡋҗ 20.1 ± 0.6 mg/kg ϩձቚуԿ 24.0 ± 4.0 mg/kgϷ 27.7 ± 1.0 mg/kg

బуልᐚࡋ 150 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgǴ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋϩձ΢ϲԿ 52.8 ± 3.5 mg/kg Ϸ 52.4 ± 1.1 mg/kgǴЪ֡ၲ

ډᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp < 0.05ȑǶ่݀ᡉҢǴబуልᐚࡋ 150 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబу ᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgǴࣣёߦ຾ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋǶࡼҔҡԪ ᆶ୴ޥࡕǴ҂బуልǵబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴϩձӆబуᎋ 200 mg/kg ܈ 400 mg/kg ٠ό཮ߦ຾ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋǶ

ǶՠѝԖబуᎋᐚࡋ 400 mg/kg ޑೀ౛ၲډ಍

ी΢ᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp < 0.05ȑǶҗԜёޕǴబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴѝԖӆబу ᎋᐚࡋ 400 mg/kgǴωૈߦ຾ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልޑᐚࡋǶ

(Β) 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗል

ልᎋΒӢηჹ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋϩ݋ޑ่݀ᡉҢȐ߄ 18ȑǴόᆅ ԖคࡼҔׯؼᏊȐҡԪ܈୴ޥȑǴልǵᎋǵልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔࣣ཮ᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶ߻ΓࣴزΨᡉҢልǵልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔࣣ཮ᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(Sarkunan et al., 1989)Ƕ

߄ 16ǵόӕೀ౛ΠልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.05 M EDTAё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 16. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

)ޑቹ ៜ

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu *** *** ***

Zn *** * **

Cu ×Zn *** NS *

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

87

߄ 17ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 17. 0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments )

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Cu 0 Zn 0 2.38 ± 0.18 e# 3.47 ± 0.09 c 3.89 ± 0.25 d Zn 200 2.47 ± 0.26 e 3.23 ± 0.22 c 3.82 ± 0.25 d Zn 400 2.69 ± 0.13 e 3.21 ± 0.20 c 4.59 ± 0.11 d Cu 75 Zn 0 20.1 ± 0.6 d 22.4 ± 1.1 b 28.1 ± 2.7 c

Zn 200 24.0 ± 4.0 cd 24.9 ± 2.3 b 33.9 ± 1.6 c Zn 400 27.7 ± 1.0 c 26.3 ± 2.5 b 30.1 ± 1.7 c Cu 150 Zn 0 40.9 ± 2.5 b 45.2 ± 1.4 a 51.7 ± 10.2 b

Zn 200 52.8 ± 3.5 a 46.3 ± 3.6 a 66.2 ± 4.4 a Zn 400 52.4 ± 1.1 a 50.8 ± 5.5 a 62.0 ± 4.6 a

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4).ġ Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05.

).

߄ 18ǵόӕೀ౛ΠልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.005 M DTPAё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 18. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

)ޑቹ ៜ

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu *** *** ***

Zn ** * **

Cu ×Zn * * ***

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

89

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϩձࣁ 1.59 - 1.69 mg/kgȐ҂బуልȑǵ15.6 - 20.3 mg/kgȐబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kgȑᆶ 25.6 - 31.5 mg/kg Ȑబуል 150 mg/kgȑȐ߄ 19ȑǶԜ่݀ᡉҢǴεठ΢బуᎋ٠ό཮ߦ຾܈׭ڋ 0.005

M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶࡼҔҡԪࡕޑ่݀ᆶ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊޑ่݀࣬՟Ƕ҂బу

ልǵబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kg

ӕኬޑǴࡼҔ୴ޥΠǴόᆅԖคబуልޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуᎋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kg Ψό཮ߦ຾܈׭ڋ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶόӕೀ౛ΠǴ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϩձࣁ 1.63 - 1.78 mg/kgȐ҂బуልȑǵ20.2 - 21.1 mg/kg Ȑబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kgȑϷ 27.9 – 37.4 mg/kgȐబуል 150 mg/kgȑǶ

Ǵ ٠ό཮ߦ຾܈׭ڋ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልޑѳ֡

ᐚࡋϩձϟܭ 1.34 - 1.51 mg/kgȐ҂బуልȑǵ15.1 - 16.8 mg/kgȐబуል 75 mg/kgȑ ᆶ 22.6 - 26.2 mg/kgȐబуል 150 mg/kgȑǶ

(Ο) 0.01 M CaCl

2

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊޑ௃ݩΠǴልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔ཮ᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.01 M CaCl ё

ё๧ڗል

2

ё๧ڗ

ልᐚࡋȐ߄ 20ȑǶՠࡼҔҡԪᆶ୴ޥࡕǴልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔ߾ό཮ቹៜ 0.01 M CaCl

2

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴ҂బуልޑβᝆǴӆబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kg ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶ

Ǵ0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϟܭ 0.07 - 0.14 mg/kgǴЪԜΟᅿೀ౛໔֡҂ၲ಍ी΢

5% ᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑ߄ 21ȑǶ่݀ᡉҢǴ҂బуልޑβᝆǴӆబуᎋό཮ߦ຾ 0.01 M

CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶฅԶќ΋ࣴزࠅᡉҢǴ҂బуልޑࣳ፦ᝆβǴబуᎋ཮फ़

ե 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(Luo and Rimmer, 1995)Ƕ

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴѝԖӆబуᎋᐚࡋ 400 mg/kgǴ ᎋ཮ᡉ๱ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǴልᐚࡋவ 0.12 ± 0.07 ΢ϲԿ

߄ 19ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 19. 0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments )

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Cu 0 Zn 0 1.69 ± 0.06 d # 1.51 ± 0.03 d 1.78 ± 0.12 d Zn 200 1.65 ± 0.06 d 1.50 ± 0.12 d 1.78 ± 0.05 d Zn400 1.59 ± 0.05 d 1.34 ± 0.11 d 1.63 ± 0.14 d Cu 75 Zn0 15.6 ± 0.7 c 15.2 ± 0.8 c 21.1 ± 2.0 c

Zn 200 17.5 ± 3.3 c 15.1 ± 1.2 c 20.7 ± 1.3 c Zn 400 20.3 ± 1.6 c 16.8 ± 1.4 c 20.2 ± 0.8 c Cu 150 Zn 0 25.6 ± 3.0 b 22.6 ± 1.3 b 29.4 ± 4.4 b Zn 200 31.5 ± 3.8 a 26.2 ± 1.9 a 37.4 ± 3.1 a Zn 400 29.8 ± 1.9 ab 25.2 ± 2.1 ab 27.9 ± 1.1 b

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4).ġ Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05.

).

91

߄ 20ǵόӕೀ౛ΠልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 20. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.01 M CaCl )ޑቹ ៜ

2

extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu *** *** ***

Zn *** * NS

Cu ×Zn *** NS NS

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

߄ 21ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋ(mg/kg Table 21. 0.01 M CaCl

)

2

extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Cu 0 Zn 0 0.07 ± 0 d # 0.12 ± 0.02 c 0.09 ± 0.02 c Zn 200 0.12 ± 0.06 d 0.10 ± 0.03 c 0.12 ± 0.02 c Zn400 0.14 ± 0.04 d 0.17 ± 0.04 abc 0.20 ± 0.06 bc Cu 75 Zn0 0.12 ± 0.07 d 0.20 ± 0.21 abc 0.19 ± 0.05 bc Zn 200 0.18 ± 0.07 d 0.12 ± 0.14 c 0.19 ± 0.05 bc Zn 400 0.43 ± 0.13 c 0.17 ± 0.07 abc 0.26 ± 0.09 abc Cu 150 Zn 0 0.60 ± 0.15 c 0.18 ± 0.04 abc 0.34 ± 0.11 ab

Zn 200 1.02 ± 0.32 b 0.23 ± 0.03 ab 0.35 ± 0.05 ab Zn 400 1.28 ± 0.46 a 0.25 ± 0.05 a 0.41 ± 0.12 a

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4).ġ Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05.

).

93

0.43 ± 0.13 mg/kgǶऩబуል 150 mg/kg ԿβᝆǴ߾ёܴᡉ࣮рӆబуᎋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgǴᎋ཮ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǴԜࣁڐӕբҔǶځύΞаబу ᎋᐚࡋࣁ 400 mg/kg ਔǴ0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋനଯǶKim ک McBride (2009) ᆶ Luo et al. (2001) ޑࣴز่݀ΨϩձᡉҢǴӆబуᎋ཮ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ޥǴబуᎋჹ 0.01 M CaCl

ё๧

ڗልᐚࡋᆶβᝆྋనύልᐚࡋǶ

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋޑߦ຾բҔ߾੃ѨǶ ҡԪᆶ୴ޥೀ౛ΠǴ҂బуልǵబуልᐚࡋ 75 mg/kg ܈బуልᐚࡋ 150 mg/kg ޑ βᝆǴϩձӆᚐѦబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgǴ0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋࣣ

҂ၲ಍ी΢ᡉ๱ৡ౦ǶᡉҢࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ޥΠǴόᆅβᝆύልᐚࡋࣁՖǴӆᚐѦ బуᎋ٠ό཮ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

Βǵᎋᎋ

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋǶ

(΋) 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋ

߄ 22 ёޕǴόᆅԖคࡼҔٿᅿׯؼᏊǴబуᎋ཮ᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.05 M EDTA ё

๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊᆶࡼҔ୴ޥΠǴልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔჹ 0.05 M EDTA ё

๧ڗᎋᐚࡋԖᡉ๱ቹៜǶฅԶ ࡼҔҡԪޑೀ౛Ǵልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔό཮ቹៜ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶ

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊޑ௃ݩΠǴ҂బуǵబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 mg/kg ܈ 400 mg/kg ޑβ ᝆǴӆϩձᚐѦబуል 75 mg/kg ܈ 150 mg/kgǴልεठ΢ό཮ߦ຾ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋȐ߄ 23ȑǶࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ޥΠǴ҂బуᎋǵబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 mg/kg ܈ 400 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴϩձӆᚐѦబуልΨό཮ߦ຾ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶ (Β) 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋ

ልᎋΒӢηჹ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋޑ่݀ᡉҢȐ߄ 24ȑǴόᆅԖค

ࡼҔׯؼᏊǴబуᎋࣣ཮ቹៜ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶѝԖӧ҂ࡼҔׯؼ Ꮚޑ௃ݩΠǴልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔჹ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋคᡉ๱ቹៜǴՠ

߄ 22ǵόӕೀ౛ΠልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg )ޑቹ ៜ

Table 22. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.05 M EDTA extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu NS NS *

Zn *** *** ***

Cu ×Zn * NS ***

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

95

߄ 23ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 23. 0.05 M EDTA extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments )

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Zn 0 Cu 0 1.26 ± 0.82 dĤ 1.11 ±0.36 d 5.40 ± 0.78 e Cu 75 0.92 ±0.23 d 1.63 ± 0.13 d 5.42 ± 1.01 e Cu 150 0.68 ± 0.37 d 0.71 ± 0.11 d 4.46 ± 0.03 e Zn 200 Cu 0 44.9 ± 7.1 c 45.1 ± 4.0 c 91.8 ± 11.1 c Cu 75 57.5 ± 3.6 b 43.0 ± 1.6 c 74.9 ± 3.9 d Cu 150 62.1 ± 2.4 b 44.7 ± 3.0 c 76.8 ± 4.3 cd Zn 400 Cu 0 145 ± 15 a 110 ± 3 ab 143 ± 12 b

Cu 75 140 ± 3 a 117 ± 6 a 163 ± 8 a Cu 150 145 ± 4 a 94.6 ± 22.9 b 138 ± 5 b

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4).ġ Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05.

).

߄ 24ǵόӕೀ౛ልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 24. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.005 M DTPA extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

)ޑቹ ៜ

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu ** *** NS

Zn *** *** ***

Cu ×Zn NS *** *

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

97

ࢂ Sarkunan et al. (1989) ࠅᡉҢልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔᡉ๱ቹៜ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧

ڗᎋǶ

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴ҂బуᎋǵబуᎋ 200 mg/kg ᆶ 400 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴϩձ ӆᚐѦబуል 75 mg/kg ܈ 150 mg/kgǴεठ΢ልό཮ߦ຾ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗ ᎋᐚࡋȐ߄ 25ȑǶࡼҔҡԪᆶ୴ޥࡕǴӆబуልΨό཮ߦ຾ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧

ڗᎋᐚࡋǶ (Ο) 0.01 M CaCl

2

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊޑೀ౛Ǵልǵᎋǵልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔࣣ཮ჹ 0.01 M CaCl ё

ё๧ڗᎋ

2

Luo and Rimmer, 1995

ё๧

ڗᎋޑᐚࡋ೷ԋᡉ๱ޑቹៜȐ߄ 26ȑǴԜ่݀ᆶ߻Γࣴز࣬಄(

)ǶࡼҔҡԪᆶ୴ޥࡕǴልکᎋޑ࣬ϕբҔჹ 0.01 M CaCl

2

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠǴ҂బуᎋޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуል 75 ܈ 150 mg/kgǴ0.01 M CaCl

ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋޑ ቹៜ߾όᡉ๱Ȑp > 0.05ȑǶ

2

ё๧ڗᎋѳ֡ᐚࡋϟܭ 0.31 - 0.50 mg/kgǴЪ֡҂ၲᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp > 0.05ȑȐ߄ 27ȑǶబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kgǴ0.01 M CaCl

₂

ё๧ڗᎋҗ 12.1 ± 1.4 mg/kg ϩձᡉ๱΢ϲԿ 17.8 ± 0.6 mg/kg ᆶ 23.4 ± 0.9 mg/kgǴЪΟᅿೀ౛໔֡ၲᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp > 0.05ȑǶӕኬ ޑǴబуᎋᐚࡋ 400 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kgǴ0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗᎋΨϩձᡉ๱

΢ϲԿ 62.1 ± 0.7 mg/kg ᆶ 69.8 ± 2.5 mg/kgǶ่݀ᡉҢǴబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kgޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kg ࣣ཮ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗ ᎋᐚࡋȐp < 0.05ȑǶKim ک McBride (2009)ǴLuo ک Rimmer (1995)ޑ่݀Ψࣣᡉ ҢǴబуል཮ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ࡼҔҡԪࡕǴ҂బуᎋޑβᝆǴӆబуልᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kgǴ0.01 M CaCl ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋǶԜѦǴLuo et al. (2001) ޑࣴزΨࡰрǴ బуል཮ቚуβᝆྋనύᎋޑᐚࡋǶ

2

ё๧ڗᎋޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϟܭ 0.26 - 0.29 mg/kgǴЪΟᅿೀ౛໔֡҂ၲډᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp

߄ 25ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 25. 0.005 M DTPA extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments )

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Zn 0 Cu 0 0.77 ± 0.18 d# 0.78 ± 0.10 e 3.75 ± 0.61 d Cu 75 0.61 ± 0.02 d 0.78 ± 0.03 e 3.12 ± 0.20 d Cu 150 0.58 ± 0.01 d 0.78 ± 0.02 e 2.60 ± 0.12 d Zn 200 Cu 0 41.3 ± 1.5 c 35.0 ± 1.1 c 60.1 ± 4.7 b

Cu 75 41.2 ± 3.0 c 32.5 ± 1.1 cd 50.2 ± 2.8 c Cu 150 48.6 ± 4.6 c 32.4 ± 0.5 d 52.8 ± 2.9 bc Zn 400 Cu 0 125 ± 8 ab 78.2 ± 1.1 b 113 ± 10 a

Cu 75 118 ± 3 b 80.5 ± 2.0 b 117 ± 3 a Cu 150 127 ± 5 a 87.8 ± 1.6 a 116 ± 4 a

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4). Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’ HSD at p = 0.05.

).

99

߄ 26ǵόӕೀ౛ΠልکᎋΒӢηϩ݋ჹ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg

Table 26. A two-way ANOVA analysis for the effect of Cu and Zn on the 0.01 M CaCl )ޑቹ ៜ

2

extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

Effect NA¨ Lime Compost

Cu *** NS **

Zn *** *** ***

Cu ×Zn *** NS NS

NS : not significant.

* significance at the 0.05 probability levels.

** significance at the 0.01 probability levels.

*** significance at the 0.001 probability levels.

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition.

߄ 27ǵόӕೀ౛Π 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗᎋᐚࡋ(mg/kg Table 27. 0.01 M CaCl

)

2

extractable Zn concentration (mg/kg) in different treatments

Treatments¨ NA Lime Compost

Zn 0 Cu 0 0.31 ± 0.04 g# 0.26 ± 0.03 c 0.26 ±0.03 c Cu 75 0.49 ± 0.10 g 0.27 ± 0.05 c 0.27 ± 0.02 c Cu 150 0.48 ± 0.06 g 0.29 ± 0.04 c 0.33 ± 0.02 c Zn 200 Cu 0 12.1 ± 1.4 f 0.49 ± 0.34 bc 1.28 ± 0.18 bc

Cu 75 17.8 ± 0.6 e 0.44 ± 0.08 c 1.78 ± 0.15 b Cu 150 23.4 ± 0.9 d 0.45 ± 0.09 c 1.99 ± 0.57 b Zn 400 Cu 0 55.5 ± 1.93 c 1.02 ± 0.06 a 4.99 ± 0.32 a Cu 75 62.1 ± 0.7 b 0.79 ± 0.03 ab 5.60 ± 1.27 a Cu 150 69.8 ± 2.5 a 0.78 ± 0.15 ab 6.18 ± 0.53 a

§ NA = no amendment ; Lime = lime addition ; Compost = compost addition ; 0, 75, 150

= spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg ) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg Ĥġ Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n=4).ġ Different letters within same column are significantly different after ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD at p = 0.05.

).

101

> 0.05ȑǶబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 ܈ 400 mg/kg ޑβᝆΨԖᜪ՟௃׎Ǵ0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧

ڗᎋޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϩձϟܭ 0.436 - 0.493 mg/kgȐబуᎋᐚࡋ 200 mg/kgȑϷ 0.784 - 1.02 mg/kgȐబуᎋᐚࡋ 400 mg/kgȑǴЪ҂ၲډᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp > 0.05ȑǶࡼҔ୴ޥᆶ

ࡼҔҡԪޑ่݀࣬՟Ǵబуᎋᐚࡋ 0ǵ200 ܈ 400 mg/kg ޑβᝆǴӆᚐѦబуል ᐚࡋ 75 ܈ 150 mg/kgǴል֡ό཮ߦ຾܈׭ڋ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋǶᕴ

ࡴٰᇥǴࡼҔҡԪᆶ୴ޥࡕǴόᆅβᝆύᎋᐚࡋࣁՖǴӆబуል 75 ܈ 150 mg/kg

֡ό཮׭ڋ܈ߦ຾ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ಃ

ಃΜΎ࿯ǵβᝆύё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶբނύልᐚࡋޑᜢ߯

ё๧ڗᎋޑᐚࡋǶ

҂బуልޑβᝆǴ0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA ᆶ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልޑ ᐚࡋϩձեܭ 4.12 mg/kgǵ1.87 mg/kg Ϸ 0.268 mg/kgȐკ 25 - 30ȑǴЪᒿ๱ልᐚ ࡋబуໆޑቚуǴ0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA ᆶ 0.01 M CaCl

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋΨ ᒿϐቚуǶబуልޑβᝆǴё๧ڗልޑѳ֡ᐚࡋϩձϟܭ 19.6 - 70.9 mg/kgȐ0.05 M EDTAȑȐკ 25 ᆶ 28ȑǵ14.3 - 41.1 mg/kgȐ0.005 M DTPAȑȐკ 26 ᆶ 29ȑᆶ 0.073 - 1.37 mg/kgȐ0.01 M CaCl

2

ȑȐკ 27 ᆶ 30ȑǶόӕ๧ڗᏊ๧ڗልૈΚޑৡ౦Ьा

ᆶ๧ڗᏊҁيޑ੝܄ԖᜢǴ0.05 M EDTA ᆶ 0.005 M DTPA ёஒβᝆύख़ߎឦϐ Ԗᐒ፦ᄊǴࣗԿࢂ਼ϯނᄊᆶᗹβ᝜ނ่ӝᄊ๧ڗрٰ(Ure, 1995)ǶԶ 0.01 M CaCl

₂

҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊǵࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ޥޑ௃ݩΠǴ0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA ᆶ 0.01 M CaCl

ឦܭύ܄ᡶᜪǴ๧ڗख़ߎឦޑૈΚၨ১ǴЬाࢂ๧ڗНёྋᆶёҬඤ܄ޑख़ ߎឦǶ

2

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶᕫԯύልᐚࡋޑ࣬ᜢ߯ኧȐr ॶȑࣣၲᡉ๱࣬ᜢȐp <

0.05ȑȐკ 25 -27ȑǴӢԜӧҁ၂ᡍచҹΠǴёҔ 0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPA ᆶ 0.01 M CaCl

2

๧ڗβᝆԖਏ܄ልᐚࡋٰႣ՗ᕫԯύልޑᐚࡋǶԜѦǴΟᅿ๧ڗᏊ

๧ڗޑልᐚࡋᆶᕫԯύልᐚࡋޑ r ॶӧ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊΠനଯǴځԛࣁҡԪೀ౛Ǵ നࡕࣁ୴ޥೀ౛ǶёૈচӢϩձࣁࡼҔҡԪගଯβᝆ pH ॶǹࡼҔ୴ޥࡕǴልᆶ

୴ޥ׎ԋᗖ่ǶࡼҔԜٿᅿׯؼᏊ٬βᝆύልޑԖਏ܄फ़եǴᏤठё๧ڗልᐚࡋ फ़եǴӢԜࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ޥΠǴ r ॶၨ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊեǶ

0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶߙఒқ๼ύልᐚࡋޑ r ॶϩձࣁ 0.746ȐNAȑǵ 0.707ȐLimeȑϷ 0.813ȐCompostȑǴЪ֡ၲཱུᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑკ 28 - 30ȑǹ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶߙఒқ๼ύልᐚࡋޑr ॶϩձࣁ 0.753ȐNAȑǵ0.668ȐLimeȑϷ 0.781ȐCompostȑǴЪ֡ၲཱུᡉ๱ৡ౦ǶҗԜёޕǴ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊǵࡼҔҡԪ܈୴ ޥΠǴ0.05 M EDTA Ϸ 0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋёҔܭႣෳߙఒқ๼ύልޑ ᐚࡋǶԜ่݀ჹྣᕫԯ r ॶёޕǴ0.05 M EDTA Ϸ 0.005 M DTPAႣෳߙఒқ๼

ύልޑᐚࡋᓬܭႣෳᕫԯύልޑᐚࡋǶ0.01 M CaCl

2

Hooda et al. (1997) ٬ҔѤᅿ๧ڗᏊႣෳλഝǵݢ๼ᆶआᡀጱύልǵᙿǵᙻǵ

ႉᆶᎋޑᐚࡋǴว౜ 0.05 M EDTAǵ0.005 M DTPAǵ1 M NH

ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶߙఒқ๼ύ ልᐚࡋޑ r ॶ໻ӧࡼҔҡԪΠ҂ၲᡉ๱ৡ౦Ǵܭ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊϷࡼҔ୴ޥΠǴࣣ

ၲཱུᡉ๱ৡ౦Ȑp < 0.01ȑǶ

4

NO

3

ᆶ 0.05 M CaCl

2

ૈႣෳ෌ᡏύख़ߎឦޑᐚࡋǴΞа 0.05 M EDTA Ⴃෳਏ݀ന٫ǶԜѦDeAbreu et al., 1996 ᡉҢ Mehlich - 3 ᆶ DTPA ҔܭႣෳλഝύልޑᐚࡋന٫ǴMehlich - 1

߾Ⴃෳلύልޑᐚࡋന٫Ƕёޕ๧ڗᏊႣෳ෌ᡏύख़ߎឦᐚࡋਏ݀ޑӳᚯǴڗ،

ܭբނᅿᜪǵ๧ڗᏊᅿᜪϷβᝆ฻Ƕ

103

კ 25ǵ0.05 M EDTA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶᕫԯύልᐚࡋޑᜢ߯ (a) ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊ (b)

ࡼҔҡԪ (c) ࡼҔ୴ޥ (0ǵ75ǵ150 = బуልᐚࡋ ; 0ǵ200ǵ400 = బу ᎋᐚࡋ)

Fig. 25. The relationship between Cu concentration in brown rice and 0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration. (a) NA (b) Lime (c) Compost

(c)

(0, 75, 150 = spiked Cu concentration (mg/kg) ; 0, 200, 400 = spiked Zn concentration (mg/kg) ) (n = 36)

Compost

0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg)

0 20 40 60 80

Cu concentration in brown rice(mg/kg) ⁰ 2

0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cu concentration in brown rice(mg/kg)

1

0.05 M EDTA extractable Cu concentration (mg/kg)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cu concentration in brown rice(mg/kg)

2

კ 26ǵ0.005 M DTPA ё๧ڗልᐚࡋᆶᕫԯύልᐚࡋޑᜢ߯ (a) ҂ࡼҔׯؼᏊ (b)

ࡼҔҡԪ (c) ࡼҔ୴ޥ (0ǵ75ǵ150 = బуልᐚࡋ ; 0ǵ200ǵ400 = బу ᎋᐚࡋ)

Fig. 26. The relationship between Cu concentration in brown rice and 0.005 M DTPA extractable Cu concentration (a) NA (b) Lime (c) Compost

(b)

(0, 75, 150 = spiked (c)

(a)

NA

在文檔中 施用石灰與堆肥對水稻及青梗白菜中銅和鋅相互作用之影響 (頁 89-115)