Sensitivity to, and accumulation of, cadmium in <i>Betula pendula</i>, <i>Picea abies</i>, and <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> seedlings from different regions in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the sensitivity to, and uptake and distribution of, cadmium (Cd) in three tree species, Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and European white birch (Betula pendula Roth), as well as different populations of these species. Seedlings of each species from three regions (southern, central, and northern parts of Sweden) were cultivated in nutrient solution and treated with varying concentrations of Cd. Sensitivity was determined by using the Weibull function on root and shoot dry weight and root length measurements. Cd uptake and translocation were analysed. The results on root sensitivity revealed that birch and spruce were the least and most sensitive species, respectively, to both the external and tissue levels of Cd. In terms of shoot sensitivity, however, birch was the only species affected by Cd, i.e., the most sensitive species. Pine and birch had similar Cd uptake, while spruce had lower uptake and translocation of Cd compared with the others. There were also differences in sensitivity within the species. The central ecotype of all species tended to be the most Cd resistant. The central ecotype of spruce and birch had the lowest Cd uptake, whereas the central ecotype of spruce and pine had the lowest translocation of Cd to the shoot.Key words: birch, cadmium, pine, sensitivity, spruce, uptake.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".