Net Cd<sup>2+</sup> flux at the root surface of durum wheat (<i>Triticum turgidum</i> L. var. <i>durum</i>) cultivars in relation to cultivar differences in Cd accumulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Net Cd 2+ flux and Cd accumulation for four durum wheat cultivars were measured to determine whether the net Cd 2+ flux to the roots plays a role in cultivar differences in Cd accumulation. Plants were germinated for 4 d in the dark and then grown hydroponically for 2 d before being placed in a Petri dish with their roots immersed in a 1.0 µM Cd solution. Net Cd 2+ flux to the root was measured at ten positions located 0.5 mm to 25 mm from the root tip. Cadmium concentrations were measured using Cd 2+ -selective microel ectrodes; Cd 2+ flux to the root surface was then calculated using the MIFE™ system. The flux was greatest nearest the root tip (within 1.5 mm of the tip) and there were no significant differences in net Cd 2+ flux among the various cultivars — likely because of the absence of a Casparian strip in the root tip cells. Net Cd 2+ flux decreased with increasing distance from the root tip, with significant differences among cultivars. The mean Cd 2+ flux to the roots in the 2–25 mm region increased in the following order: Arcola ≈ G9265-AU ≈ Kyle < G9265-BF, with the low grain Cd accumulators (Arcola and G9265-AU) generally exhibiting lower fluxes than the high grain Cd accumulators (Kyle and G9265-BF). However, net Cd 2+ flux did not correspond to total plant Cd content, which increased in the order: G9265-AU < G9265-BF < Kyle < Arcola. We conclude that while there are durum wheat cultivar differences in the net Cd 2+ flux at the root surface, their contribution to cultivar differences in total plant Cd accumulation is generally overshadowed by one or more other Cd accumulation factors. Key words: Cadmium, microelectrodes, plant cadmium content, cadmium flux, durum wheat, cultivar
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".