silicon atom · Physiology: osmolytes · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)
6 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 6
6 pairs of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Effects of silicon on proline content in alfalfa (2012)
increasePot silicon treatment significantly increased alfalfa leaf proline under drought.
Effect of Silicon on Some Physiological-biochemical Characteristics and Quality of Alfalfa under Different Soil Moistures (2011)no changeSilicon did not affect proline and malonaldehyde content in alfalfa leaves at 65% of field water capacity.
What separates themSituation: drought · not statedCompare the two papers → - Role of Silicon Counteracting Cadmium Toxicity in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (2016)
increaseSilicon elevated methionine and proline under cadmium stress.
Silicon Priming Created an Enhanced Tolerance in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Seedlings in Response to High Alkaline Stress (2018)decreaseSilicon priming decreased protein and proline accumulation in alfalfa.
What separates themSituation: heavy-metal stress · seed primingCompare the two papers → - Silicon Priming Created an Enhanced Tolerance in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Seedlings in Response to High Alkaline Stress (2018)
decreaseSilicon priming decreased protein and proline accumulation in alfalfa.
Changes in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Growth and Biochemical Traits in Response to Silicon Application under Different Irrigation Regime (2017)increaseSilicon application increased plant height, dry weight and soluble protein of alfalfa under water deficit.
What separates themSituation: seed priming · droughtCompare the two papers → - Effects of silicon on proline content in alfalfa (2012)
increasePot silicon treatment significantly increased alfalfa leaf proline under drought.
Silicon Priming Created an Enhanced Tolerance in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Seedlings in Response to High Alkaline Stress (2018)decreaseSilicon priming decreased protein and proline accumulation in alfalfa.
What separates themSituation: drought · seed primingCompare the two papers → - Effect of Silicon on Some Physiological-biochemical Characteristics and Quality of Alfalfa under Different Soil Moistures (2011)
no changeSilicon did not affect proline and malonaldehyde content in alfalfa leaves at 65% of field water capacity.
Role of Silicon Counteracting Cadmium Toxicity in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (2016)increaseSilicon elevated methionine and proline under cadmium stress.
What separates themSituation: not stated · heavy-metal stressCompare the two papers → - Effect of Silicon on Some Physiological-biochemical Characteristics and Quality of Alfalfa under Different Soil Moistures (2011)
no changeSilicon did not affect proline and malonaldehyde content in alfalfa leaves at 65% of field water capacity.
Silicon Priming Created an Enhanced Tolerance in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Seedlings in Response to High Alkaline Stress (2018)decreaseSilicon priming decreased protein and proline accumulation in alfalfa.
What separates themSituation: not stated · seed primingCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 5
Effects of silicon on proline content in alfalfa · 2012
- positive
Role of Silicon Counteracting Cadmium Toxicity in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) · 2016
- positive
- positive
- positive
Amelioration of salt‐induced damage on alfalfa by exogenous application of silicon · 2021
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.