The relationship between root morphology and cadmium accumulation in seedlings of two durum wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two cultivars of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) with known, and different, grain-Cd accumulation were used to compare root tissue accumulation of Cd with root morphology. Six-day-old 'Kyle' and 'Arcola' seedlings were exposed to a range of Cd 2 + concentrations (3.91 × 10 -8 - 3.91 × 10 -7 M) for 0-200 min, and root Cd contents for the two cultivars were compared with root morphological characteristics. 'Kyle' roots contained 35% less Cd per root system after 200 min of exposure and had less root surface area and fewer root tips than 'Arcola'. 'Kyle' roots also contained 30% less Cd per gram of dry weight than 'Arcola' roots after 200 min of exposure. 'Kyle' roots also had fewer root tips per unit of root dry weight and less surface area per unit of dry weight (DW) than 'Arcola'. When cadmium concentration data (µg·g -1 DW) were expressed per unit of root surface area (µg·cm -2 ) and per number of root tips (µg·tip -1 ), the difference in root Cd content between the two cultivars was smaller. These results suggest that greater root Cd content of 'Arcola' than 'Kyle' can be explained by differences in morphology, specifically that a greater surface area and more root tips in 'Arcola' leads to greater Cd accumulation in root tissue.Key words: cadmium accumulation, durum wheat, root morphology.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".