| Title |
Effects of melatonin on the growth and cadmium characteristics of Cyphomandra betacea seedlings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10661-018-6481-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lijin Lin, Jianhua Li, Fabo Chen, Ming’an Liao, Yi Tang, Dong Liang, Hui Xia, Yunsong Lai, Xun Wang, Cheng Chen, Wei Ren |
| Abstract |
To determine whether the melatonin (MT) could reduce cadmium (Cd) accumulation in Cyphomandra betacea seedlings, different concentrations of MT were added to the nutrient solution and soil to study its effects on the growth and Cd characteristics of C. betacea seedlings. Fifty micromoles per liter (μmol/kg) of MT increased the biomass of C. betacea seedlings, but 100-200 μmol/L (μmol/kg) MT decreased seedling biomass in both the nutrient solution and soil cultivation experiments. The photosynthetic pigment contents showed no significant changes compared with the control when the MT dose was 150 μmol/L (μmol/kg) or less, while 200 μmol/L (μmol/kg) MT decreased the photosynthetic pigment contents. Low levels of MT improved the antioxidant enzyme activities of C. betacea seedlings, whereas high MT levels reduced them. MT increased the Cd contents in different organs of C. betacea seedlings in the nutrient solution cultivation experiment, but only 50 μmol/kg MT increased the Cd contents in stems, leaves, and shoots of C. betacea seedlings in the soil cultivation experiment. Therefore, only low levels of MT can promote the growth of C. betacea seedlings, and MT is not suitable for reducing Cd accumulation in C. betacea seedlings. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 11% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 58% |
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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#1,865
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,965
of 442,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#44
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 442,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.