| Title |
Field Survey and Comparative Study of Pteris Vittata and Pityrogramma Calomelanos Grown on Arsenic Contaminated Lands with Different Soil pH
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00128-018-2325-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bui Thi Kim Anh, Nguyen Ngoc Minh, Nguyen Thi Hoang Ha, Dang Dinh Kim, Nguyen Trung Kien, Nguyen Quang Trung, Tran Thien Cuong, Luu Thai Danh |
| Abstract |
In field survey, Pteris vittata and Pityrogramma calomelanos were only found in arsenic (As) contaminated areas with soil pH 7.2-8.8 and 2.3-4.2, respectively. In the first pot experiment, two fern species were grown on the soil amended with 300 mg kg-1 As at soil pH of 5.1, 7.2 and 9. P. calomelanos survived all pH treatments, and had the highest frond As concentration and soil As removal efficiency at soil pH 5.1. All P. vittata plants were dead at soil pH 5.1. P. vittata had higher frond As concentration, biomass and the amount of As removed from the soil than those of P. calomelanos at soil pH of 7.2 and 9. In the second pot experiment, P. vittata was demonstrated to have greater life time, biomass, As tolerance and accumulation than those of P. calomelanos as planted on alkaline soil (pH 7.8) spiked with various concentrations of As. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 5 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#21,608,038
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#3,090
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,936
of 336,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#37
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.