Editorial: Coping with pollution - the effects of environmental contaminants on plant growth and physiology, volume II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial on the Research TopicCoping with pollution -the effects of environmental contaminants on plant growth and physiology, volume II Although environmental contamination by metals is an old concern and despite the number of studies addressing that problem, investigations aiming at understanding toxicological responses as well as the improvement of nature-based solutions to recover metal-impacted ecosystems are still needed.The planet has been faced with intensified anthropogenic activities, such as excessive disposal of mining waste and industrial and agricultural effluents.These contamination sources are responsible for the insertion of tons of toxic metals to ecosystems; events demanding appropriate management actions.One of the most feasible solutions to reclaim soils polluted with toxic metals is the use of plants in phytoremediation technique.Although phytoremediation has proven as a green technology for metal removal from low-to-moderate contaminated sites, the selection of plant species as well as of supporting strategies aiming to enhance phytoremediation efficiency merit attention (Gomes et al., 2021).Due to their high biomass yields, fast growth, adaptation strategies to infertile soils and successive short regrowth after harvest, grasses have been proposed as prospective candidates for metal phytoremediation.In their review, Rabelo et al. synthesized information on mechanisms involved in uptake, accumulation and tolerance to toxic metals, identified suitable grass species for phytoremediation processes, described strategies used to improve their phytoremediation efficiency and, mainly, pointed out to the advantages and disadvantages of using grass species in phytoremediation.Although grasses generally have great tolerance to metals, there are sensitive to adverse climate conditions (such as water deficit and low temperatures), there are mostly effective to withdrawing metals from the topsoil due to poor root penetration in the substrate and, finally, several species are particularly sensitive to metal pollutant mixtures, therefore, compromising their Frontiers in Plant Science frontiersin.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.022 |
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".