Abstract
Abstract Young maize plants (hybrid Knezha‐650), grown hydroponically, were supplied with different amounts (7.5–0 mg Fe L‐1) of iron (Fe). At 14, 21, and 28 days, concentrations of Fe, phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and copper (Cu) in leaves were determined. Iron deficiency resulted in rapid and strong decrease of root Fe concentration. Despite the low total Fe in the leaves of chlorotic plants, the Fe concentration in leaves did not reflect the Fe supply to plants. In Fe‐deficient plants, the tissue concentrations of nutrient elements other than Fe changed too, the alterations in the studied microelements being greater. Changes in Mn and Zn concentrations in leaves depended highly on the degree of Fe deficiency. Copper transport to leaves seemed to be hampered and the main part of it was retained by roots. As compared to control plants, the portion of Fe, Mn, and Ca in roots was smaller in chlorotic plants. The opposite trend was found for Cu and Mg. Increased Zn/Fe, Mn/Fe, and possibly P/Fe ratios might be related to Fe inactivation in leaves under Fe deficiency. Plants supplied with 1/10 of optimum Fe required “adapted”; partially to Fe deficiency which was expressed by a smaller departure from the norm for micronutrient concentrations in leaves at the end of the experiment as compared to the earlier stages of growth.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Iron deficiency sharply decreased root Fe concentration in maize.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Iron deficiency resulted in rapid and strong decrease of root Fe concentration”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf Fe concentration did not reflect Fe supply despite low total Fe in chlorotic maize leaves.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Despite the low total Fe in the leaves of chlorotic plants, the Fe concentration in leaves did not reflect the Fe supply to plants”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Fe deficiency also changed concentrations of other nutrients, with larger changes in microelements.
- Treatment
- Fe‐deficiente0
- Outcome
- tissue concentrations of nutrient elements other than Fee0
- Direction
- changede0
- Qualifier
- alterations in the studied microelements being greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In Fe‐deficient plants, the tissue concentrations of nutrient elements other than Fe changed too, the alterations in the studied microelements being greater”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf Mn and Zn concentrations depended on the degree of Fe deficiency.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes in Mn and Zn concentrations in leaves depended highly on the degree of Fe deficiency”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Cu transport to leaves appeared hampered, with most Cu retained in roots.
- Outcome
- Copper transport to leavese0
- Direction
- hamperede0
- Qualifier
- main part of it was retained by rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Copper transport to leaves seemed to be hampered and the main part of it was retained by roots”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorotic maize had a smaller root portion of Fe, Mn and Ca than controls.
- Treatment
- chlorotic plantse0
- Outcome
- portion of Fe, Mn, and Ca in rootse0
- Direction
- smallere0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As compared to control plants, the portion of Fe, Mn, and Ca in roots was smaller in chlorotic plants”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorotic maize had a larger root portion of Cu and Mg than controls.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As compared to control plants, the portion of Fe, Mn, and Ca in roots was smaller in chlorotic plants. The opposite trend was found for Cu and Mg”
t0“maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased Zn/Fe, Mn/Fe and possibly P/Fe ratios may relate to Fe inactivation in leaves.
- Treatment
- Fe deficiencye0
- Outcome
- Zn/Fe, Mn/Fe, and possibly P/Fe ratiose0
- Direction
- Increasede0
- Qualifier
- Fe inactivation in leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased Zn/Fe, Mn/Fe, and possibly P/Fe ratios might be related to Fe inactivation in leaves under Fe deficiency”
t0“maize plants”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.