This assessment reveals heavy metal contamination's impact on agricultural soils in Guangxi, indicating high ecological risks from Cd and interactions with Zn and Se.
Severe heavy metal contamination affects the karst landscapes of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China, which are highly polluted and complex. However, integrated assessments of heavy metal sources, distribution, ecological risks, and speciation in karst agricultural soils remain limited. Additionally, there is a gap regarding the interactions between cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), and selenium (Se) in natural rice fields. This study employed the pollution load index (PLI), ecological risk index (RI), and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) models to evaluate the sources and characteristics of heavy metal contamination in farmland soils. The results showed significant pollution in agricultural soils of Guangxi karst due to Cd, chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), and nickel (Ni). Among these, Cd poses the highest ecological risk. Heavy metal accumulation in the surface soil far exceeds that in deeper layers, and the main sources of Cd were contributed from soil parent material and agricultural activities. Speciation analysis revealed the high bioavailability of Cd, while Zn and Se existed in more stable forms. Despite elevated soil Cd levels, rice grains remained within the safety limits. Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Cd was primarily detected in the cell walls of rice stems and husks, which was attributed to Zn’s competitive uptake, reducing Cd absorption and Se forming complexes with Cd to enhance its fixation. Statistical correlations revealed positive associations between Cd in soil and rice. Cd also demonstrated a positive correlation with Se, but a negative correlation with Zn, suggesting a synergistic mechanism between Zn and Se that acts to mitigate the absorption of Cd. This study provides practical guidance for managing farmland soil heavy metal contamination and protecting agricultural soil resources in the karst areas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: