Abstract
Abstract It was the objective to study the effect of Al on Mg uptake by plants, precluding as far as possible the effect of Al on root growth. Oat plants were grown in a complete standard nutrient solution without any differential treatment, in order to obtain a set of plants which did not differ in the size, the morphology and the physiology of the root system. After the first harvest at the beginning of the stem elongation stage 4 different treatments were introduced: pH 5.5‐6.0, pH 5.5‐6.0 without Mg, pH 3.8‐4.1, pH 3.8‐4.1 + 0.3 mmole Al/l. Apart from these variations the composition of the nutrient solution remained unaltered. After another 10 days 2 vessels of each treatment were harvested. The final harvest was 14 days after the beginning of the differential treatments. The growth (in terms of dry matter yield) of neither the shoots nor the roots was adversely affected by the differential treatments, although the plants in the Al and Mg 0 treatments showed distinct symptoms of nutritional disorder. The plants in the low and the high pH treatments differed neither in Mg uptakte nor in Mg concentration in the plants. However, the addition of Al to the nutrient solution reduced Mg uptake in the shoots to about 30% of that in the Al 0 treatments, while there was a net loss of Mg in the roots in spite of the fact that dry matter increased. This means that net uptake of Mg was less than was translocated to the shoot during the period of differential treatments. With no Al in the nutrient solution the Mg concentration in the shoots declined by 3–8% between the first and the final harvest, whereas it increased by 22–35% in the roots. If, however, Al was added to the nutrient solution the Mg concentration dropped by 46% in the shoots and 70% in the roots. With the exception of Ca in the roots, the differential treatments had no effect on the uptake and concentration of Ca, K and P in the plants. In terms of dry matter the differential treatments did not influence root growth and it was concluded that Al had a direct effect on Mg uptake by either inactivating or competing for uptake sites or carriers.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Differential treatments did not adversely affect oat shoot or root dry matter yield.
- Taxon
- Oats
Avena sativat0 - Treatment
- differential treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growth (in terms of dry matter yield) of neither the shoots nor the roots was adversely affected by the differential treatments”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminium and Mg-free treatments produced nutritional disorder symptoms in oats.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- Al and Mg 0 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- symptoms of nutritional disordere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the plants in the Al and Mg 0 treatments showed distinct symptoms of nutritional disorder”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Low and high pH treatments did not differ in oat Mg uptake or concentration.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- lowe0
- Outcome
- Mg uptakte nor in Mg concentratione0
- Direction
- differed neithere0
- Comparator
- high pH treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The plants in the low and the high pH treatments differed neither in Mg uptakte nor in Mg concentration in the plants.”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminium reduced shoot Mg uptake to about 30% of that without aluminium.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- addition of Al to the nutrient solutione0
- Outcome
- Mg uptake in the shootse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- about 30%e0
- Comparator
- Al 0 treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the addition of Al to the nutrient solution reduced Mg uptake in the shoots to about 30% of that in the Al 0 treatments”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat roots had a net Mg loss despite increased dry matter with aluminium.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- Ale1
- Outcome
- net loss of Mg in the rootse0
- Direction
- losse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a net loss of Mg in the roots in spite of the fact that dry matter increased”
e1“the addition of Al to the nutrient solution”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Without aluminium, shoot Mg concentration declined by 3–8% between harvests.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Outcome
- Mg concentration in the shootse0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 3–8%e0
- Qualifier
- With no Al in the nutrient solutione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With no Al in the nutrient solution the Mg concentration in the shoots declined by 3–8% between the first and the final harvest”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Without aluminium, root Mg concentration increased by 22–35%.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Outcome
- Mg concentratione1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22–35%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whereas it increased by 22–35% in the roots”
e1“With no Al in the nutrient solution the Mg concentration in the shoots declined by 3–8% between the first and the final harvest”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
With aluminium, oat shoot Mg concentration dropped by 46%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“If, however, Al was added to the nutrient solution the Mg concentration dropped by 46% in the shoots and 70% in the roots.”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
With aluminium, oat root Mg concentration dropped by 70%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“If, however, Al was added to the nutrient solution the Mg concentration dropped by 46% in the shoots and 70% in the roots.”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not affect uptake and concentrations of calcium, potassium or phosphorus, apart from root calcium.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- differential treatmentse0
- Outcome
- uptake and concentration of Ca, K and Pe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- With the exception of Ca in the rootse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With the exception of Ca in the roots, the differential treatments had no effect on the uptake and concentration of Ca, K and P in the plants.”
t0“Oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors concluded aluminium directly affected oat Mg uptake through uptake sites or carriers.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativat0
- Treatment
- Ale0
- Outcome
- Mg uptakee0
- Qualifier
- either inactivating or competing for uptake sites or carrierse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was concluded that Al had a direct effect on Mg uptake by either inactivating or competing for uptake sites or carriers”
t0“Oats”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 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.