MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Zinc effects on cadmium accumulation and partitioning in near‐isogenic lines of durum wheat that differ in grain cadmium concentration

2005· article· en· W2138564273 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan J. Hart, Ross M. Welch, W. A. Norvell, J. M. Clarke, Leon V. Kochian

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsCadmiumShootZincCultivarPoaceaeNutrientChromosomal translocationBiologyAgronomyTriticum turgidumChemistryBotanyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, we examined the effectiveness of two approaches for reducing cadmium (Cd) accumulation in durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var durum) grain: the application of supplemental zinc (Zn), and the use of cultivars exhibiting reduced grain Cd concentrations. Two durum wheat near-isogenic lines (NIL) that differ in grain Cd accumulation were grown to maturity in solution culture containing a chelating agent to buffer the free activities of Zn and Cd at levels approximating those of field conditions. The low Cd accumulating (L-Cd) isoline had Cd concentrations, in grains and shoot parts, which were 60-70% lower than those of the high Cd accumulating (H-Cd) isoline. Increasing the Zn activities in the nutrient solution from deficient to sufficient levels reduced the concentration of Cd in grains and vegetative shoot parts of both isolines. The results suggest that supplemental Zn reduces Cd tissue concentrations by inhibiting Cd uptake into roots. Cd partitioning patterns between roots and shoots and between spike components suggest that the physiological basis for the low Cd trait is related to the compartmentation or symplasmic translocation of Cd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations120
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207