Abstract
Aluminum toxicity on root systems was analyzed through comparing root growth and evaluating the protective function of mucilage in Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha. Seedlings were grown in a solution with different concentrations of AlCl3 and with mucilage removed or present. The root elongation rate, total length, number of roots and presence of aluminum at the root apex were measured. Root development was inhibited by aluminum and the elongation rate was maintained without any difference between the two species. A significant reduction in root length was found in U. brizantha. Aluminum did not influence root branching in either species and accumulated mostly in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha, where the mucilage has less of a protective function. The greatest aluminum tolerance was found in U. decumbens, observed through maintenance of total root system growth from lower to higher aluminum toxicity.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum inhibited root development in Urochloa seedlings.
- Taxon
- Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha
Urochloa brizantha.jpg?width=60)
Urochloa decumbense0 - Treatment
- aluminume1
- Outcome
- Root developmente1
- Direction
- inhibitede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Aluminum toxicity on root systems was analyzed through comparing root growth and evaluating the protective function of mucilage in Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha”
e1“Root development was inhibited by aluminum and the elongation rate was maintained without any difference between the two species”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum maintained the root elongation rate of Urochloa, with no difference between the two species.
- Taxon
- Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizanthaUrochloa brizanthaUrochloa decumbense0
- Treatment
- aluminume1
- Outcome
- elongation ratee1
- Direction
- maintainede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aluminum toxicity on root systems was analyzed through comparing root growth and evaluating the protective function of mucilage in Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha”
e1“Root development was inhibited by aluminum and the elongation rate was maintained without any difference between the two species”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum significantly reduced root length in U. brizantha.
- Taxon
- U. brizanthaUrochloa brizanthae2
- Treatment
- aluminume1
- Outcome
- root lengthe2
- Direction
- reductione2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Root development was inhibited by aluminum and the elongation rate was maintained without any difference between the two species”
e2“A significant reduction in root length was found in U. brizantha”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum did not influence root branching in either Urochloa species.
- Taxon
- Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizanthaUrochloa brizanthaUrochloa decumbense0
- Treatment
- aluminume3
- Outcome
- root branchinge3
- Direction
- did not influencee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aluminum toxicity on root systems was analyzed through comparing root growth and evaluating the protective function of mucilage in Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha”
e3“Aluminum did not influence root branching in either species and accumulated mostly in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha, where the mucilage has less of a protective function”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum accumulated mostly in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha.
- Taxon
- U. brizanthaUrochloa brizanthae3
- Outcome
- accumulated mostly in the rhizospheree3
- Setting
- rhizospheree3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Aluminum did not influence root branching in either species and accumulated mostly in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha, where the mucilage has less of a protective function”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminum accumulated in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha because its mucilage gives less protection.
- Taxon
- U. brizanthaUrochloa brizanthae3
- Outcome
- accumulated mostly in the rhizospheree3
- Qualifier
- the mucilage has less of a protective functione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Aluminum did not influence root branching in either species and accumulated mostly in the rhizosphere of U. brizantha, where the mucilage has less of a protective function”
Claim · model-written summary
U. decumbens had the greatest aluminum tolerance, shown by maintained total root system growth across aluminum toxicity levels.
- Taxon
- U. decumbensUrochloa decumbense4
- Treatment
- aluminum toxicitye4
- Outcome
- aluminum tolerancee4
- Direction
- greateste4
- Qualifier
- maintenance of total root system growthe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aluminum toxicity on root systems was analyzed through comparing root growth and evaluating the protective function of mucilage in Urochloa decumbens and Urochloa brizantha”
e4“The greatest aluminum tolerance was found in U. decumbens, observed through maintenance of total root system growth from lower to higher aluminum toxicity”
The same questions in other papers
aluminium atom · growth · Urochloa decumbensResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
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.