Paper · 2021 · Scientific Reports

Alleviatory effects of Silicon on the morphology, physiology, and antioxidative mechanisms of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) roots under cadmium stress in acidic nutrient solutions

Shafeeq ur Rahman; Qi Xuebin; Zhijuan Zhao; et al.

11
claims
18
verbatim quotes
78
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Silicon (Si), as a quasi-essential element, has a vital role in alleviating the damaging effects of various environmental stresses on plants. Cadmium (Cd) stress is severe abiotic stress, especially in acidic ecological conditions, and Si can demolish the toxicity induced by Cd as well as acidic pH on plants. Based on these hypotheses, we demonstrated 2-repeated experiments to unfold the effects of Si as silica gel on the root morphology and physiology of wheat seedling under Cd as well as acidic stresses. For this purpose, we used nine treatments with three levels of Si nanoparticles (0, 1, and 3 mmol L −1 ) derived from sodium silicate (Na 2 SiO 3 ) against three concentrations of Cd (0, 50, and 200 µmol L −1 ) in the form of cadmium chloride (CdCl 2 ) with three replications were arranged in a complete randomized design. The pH of the nutrient solution was adjusted at 5. The averages of three random replications showed that the mutual impacts of Si and Cd in acidic pH on wheat roots depend on the concentrations of Si and Cd. The collective or particular influence of low or high levels of Si (1 or 3 mM) and acidic pH (5) improved the development of wheat roots, and the collective influence was more significant than that of a single parallel treatment. The combined effects of low or high concentrations of Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pH significantly reduced root growth and biomass while increased antioxidants, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) contents. The incorporation of Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solution promoted the wheat root growth, decreased ROS contents, and further increased the antioxidants in the wheat roots compared with Cd single treatments in acidic pH. The demolishing effects were better with a high level of Si (3 mM) than the low level of Si (1 Mm). In conclusion, we could suggest Si as an effective beneficial nutrient that could participate actively in several morphological and physiological activities of roots in wheat plants grown under Cd and acidic pH stresses.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si and Cd effects on wheat roots depended on their concentrations at acidic pH.

Treatment
concentrations of Si and Cde0
Outcome
mutual impacts of Si and Cd in acidic pH on wheat rootse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the mutual impacts of Si and Cd in acidic pH on wheat roots depend on the concentrations of Si and Cd”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1051 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si at 1 or 3 mM and acidic pH improved wheat root development.

Treatment
Si (1 or 3 mM) and acidic pH (5)e0
Outcome
development of wheat rootse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The collective or particular influence of low or high levels of Si (1 or 3 mM) and acidic pH (5) improved the development of wheat roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1053–1189 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined Si and acidic pH improved roots more than either treatment alone.

Treatment
collective influencee0
Outcome
development of wheat rootse1
Direction
more significante0
Comparator
single parallel treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the collective influence was more significant than that of a single parallel treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1195–1281 · show in text ↑
e1

“improved the development of wheat roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1189 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cd with acidic pH significantly reduced root growth and biomass.

Treatment
Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pHe0
Outcome
root growth and biomasse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combined effects of low or high concentrations of Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pH significantly reduced root growth and biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1283–1414 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cd with acidic pH increased root antioxidants.

Treatment
Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pHe0
Outcome
antioxidantse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combined effects of low or high concentrations of Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pH significantly reduced root growth and biomass while increased antioxidants, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1283–1487 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cd with acidic pH increased root ROS contents.

Treatment
Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pHe0
Outcome
reactive oxygen species (ROS) contentse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combined effects of low or high concentrations of Cd (50 or 200 µM) and acidic pH significantly reduced root growth and biomass while increased antioxidants, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1283–1487 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si in Cd-contaminated acidic solution promoted wheat root growth versus Cd alone.

Treatment
Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solutione0
Outcome
wheat root growthe0
Direction
promotede0
Comparator
Cd single treatments in acidic pHe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The incorporation of Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solution promoted the wheat root growth, decreased ROS contents, and further increased the antioxidants in the wheat roots compared with Cd single treatments in acidic pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1489–1738 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si in Cd-contaminated acidic solution decreased wheat root ROS versus Cd alone.

Treatment
Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solutione0
Outcome
ROS contentse0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
Cd single treatments in acidic pHe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The incorporation of Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solution promoted the wheat root growth, decreased ROS contents, and further increased the antioxidants in the wheat roots compared with Cd single treatments in acidic pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1489–1738 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si in Cd-contaminated acidic solution increased wheat root antioxidants versus Cd alone.

Treatment
Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solutione0
Outcome
antioxidants in the wheat rootse0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
Cd single treatments in acidic pHe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The incorporation of Si (1 or 3 mmol L −1 ) in Cd-contaminated acidic nutrient solution promoted the wheat root growth, decreased ROS contents, and further increased the antioxidants in the wheat roots compared with Cd single treatments in acidic pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1489–1738 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Si alleviation was better at 3 mM than 1 mM.

Treatment
high level of Si (3 mM)e0
Outcome
demolishing effectse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
low level of Si (1 Mm)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The demolishing effects were better with a high level of Si (3 mM) than the low level of Si (1 Mm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1740–1838 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–122 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest Si as a beneficial nutrient under Cd and acidic stress.

Outcome
Si as an effective beneficial nutriente0
Qualifier
under Cd and acidic pH stressese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“we could suggest Si as an effective beneficial nutrient that could participate actively in several morphological and physiological activities of roots in wheat plants grown under Cd and acidic pH stresses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1855–2059 · show in text ↑

silicon atom · physiology: oxidative · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

41 papers: 40 positive, 1 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

cadmium atom · physiology: oxidative · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

47 papers: 4 positive, 43 negative or no effect

42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

43 papers more in this group

See all 47 papers →

silicon atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

81 papers: 74 positive, 7 negative or no effect

73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

77 papers more in this group

See all 81 papers →

cadmium atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

110 papers: 20 positive, 90 negative or no effect

89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

106 papers more in this group

See all 110 papers →

silicon atom · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

34 papers: 32 positive, 2 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

30 papers more in this group

See all 34 papers →

cadmium atom · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 10 positive, 30 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

ph · physiology: oxidative · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

ph · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 5 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.