Differential accumulation of Cd in durum wheat cultivars: uptake and retranslocation as sources of variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) accumulates Cd from the soil depending on various factors. When grown in hydroponic solution containing Cd (20 microg l(-1)), roots had higher tissue Cd concentrations than shoots or heads. Kyle (the higher grain-Cd accumulating cultivar) had lower root-Cd, and greater shoot-Cd and head-Cd concentrations than Arcola (the lower grain-Cd accumulating cultivar). These cultivar differences were greater at flowering and ripening than at tillering. Much of the root-Cd was lost between the flowering and ripening stages of development. Distribution of (106)Cd among plant parts, after a single 24 h feeding, demonstrated that root-to-shoot transfer of Cd in Arcola was similar to that of Kyle at tillering, but it had ceased at flowering in Arcola but not Kyle. None of the Cd in wheat heads at ripening originated from (106)Cd exposure in the previous 24 h, suggesting that grain-Cd is a function of total shoot accumulation. Both cultivars demonstrated basipetal translocation of Cd; Arcola at tillering translocated more Cd from shoots to roots than Kyle. The proportion of Cd(2+)/Cd(total) in the nutrient solution decreased with time, suggesting that plant activity altered the solution chemistry. The alteration probably resulted from either preferential depletion of solution Cd(2+) and/or addition of root exudates. Lower grain-Cd accumulation in Arcola possibly resulted from a combination of reduced root-to-shoot transfer of Cd at flowering, as well as enhanced shoot-to-root retranslocation of Cd, at least in younger plants. Plant-mediated changes in solution-Cd speciation did not play a role.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".