Zinc Uptake and Shoot Partitioning Between Zinc Efficient and Inefficient Exacum Genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific hybrids of exacum ( Exacum L.) display variable responses to zinc nutrition. Our research compared two genotypes with contrasting zinc efficiency phenotypes in terms of root cation exchange capacity (CEC), whole plant 65 Zn uptake, and the effects of Cu +2 and Mg +2 on 65 Zn uptake and partitioning to shoot tissues. Results show that the zinc efficient and inefficient genotypes had significantly different root CEC [27.2 and 16.9 cmol(+)·kg -1 root dry weight (DW), respectively] and whole plant 65 Zn uptake rates (0.048 and 0.026 μmol·h -1 ·g -1 DW, respectively). In equimolar concentrations to Zn +2 , Cu +2 reduced Zn +2 uptake by approximately 50% in both genotypes while supplemental Mg +2 enhanced Zn +2 uptake. In addition, Mg +2 facilitated a larger proportion of absorbed 65 Zn to the upper shoot of the efficient genotype. We conclude zinc is absorbed through a specific Zn +2 /Cu +2 transporter and that zinc efficiency in exacum is based on a combination of apoplastic and symplastic traits. In addition, a secondary Mg +2 × Zn +2 interaction may contribute to the zinc efficiency phenotype.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".