↓ Skip to main content

Citrus Epicarp-Derived Biochar Reduced Cd Uptake and Ameliorates Oxidative Stress in Young Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench (okra) Under Low Cd Stress

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Citrus Epicarp-Derived Biochar Reduced Cd Uptake and Ameliorates Oxidative Stress in Young Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench (okra) Under Low Cd Stress
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00128-018-2339-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clement O. Ogunkunle, Mayank Varun, Iyanuoluwa G. Ogundele, Kehinde S. Olorunmaiye, Manoj S. Paul

Abstract

Due to the important role of biochar (BC) in reducing metal-toxicity in plants, this study was aimed at assessing the potential of citrus epicarp-derived BC in ameliorating Cd toxicity in young Abelmoschus esculentus (okra) under low Cd toxicity. Okra was grown in soil amended with BC at four treatment levels for 49 days as follows: control (A), sole 1.4 mg Cd/kg-spiked soil (B), 1.4 mg Cd/kg-spiked soil + 1% BC (C) and 1.4 mg Cd/kg-spiked soil + 3% BC (D). The results showed a dose-dependent reduction in shoot accumulation of Cd due to the BC application. In addition, compared to control and sole Cd-amended soil, BC treatments (both at 1% and 3% w/w) decreased the oxidative stress, and enhanced activities of enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants in the young okra. Generally, the application of BC to the soil was effective in ameliorating the Cd-induced oxidative stress in okra with limited shoot bioaccumulation of Cd.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 12 60%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 May 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
#291,825
of 330,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#27
of 60 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 330,890 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 60 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.