MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013519022 · doi:10.1139/b05-111

Aluminum accumulation in the roots of <i>Melastoma malabathricum</i>, an aluminum-accumulating plant

2005· article· en· W2013519022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toshihiro Watanabe, Seiji Misawa, Mitsuru Osaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApoplastSymplastShootOxalateChemistryBotanyPlant rootsSoil waterNuclear chemistryBiologyBiochemistryInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generally, plants that have Al levels of at least 1000 mg·kg –1 in their leaves are defined as Al accumulators. These plants are often found in very acid soils in the tropics. The mechanisms of Al uptake in strong Al accumulators are still unclear. In this study, we investigated the characteristics of Al uptake and accumulation in the roots of Melastoma malabathricum L., an Al-accumulating plant that grows in acidic soils in the tropics. Melastoma malabathricum roots hardly absorb any La, possibly because of lower affinity of the root apoplast to La than to Al. Exposure to La did not affect the concentration of citrate in the roots; however, application of Al increased the citrate level considerably, corresponding with the amount of Al accumulation in the symplast. 27 Al NMR analysis revealed that Al complexes with oxalate, but not with citrate, in the roots of M. malabathricum. This investigation revealed that oxalate, which occurs constitutively at high concentrations, is a ligand for Al accumulation in both root and shoot tissue, and that citrate, the synthesis of which is induced by Al application, is a ligand mainly used for Al translocation from the roots to the shoots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207