↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for Active Uptake and Deposition of Si-based Defenses in Tall Fescue

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence for Active Uptake and Deposition of Si-based Defenses in Tall Fescue
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.01199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma McLarnon, Simon McQueen-Mason, Ingo Lenk, Susan E. Hartley

Abstract

Silicon (Si) is taken up from the soil as monosilicic acid by plant roots, transported to leaves and deposited as phytoliths, amorphous silica (SiO2) bodies, which are a key component of anti-herbivore defense in grasses. Silicon transporters have been identified in many plant species, but the mechanisms underpinning Si transport remain poorly understood. Specifically, the extent to which Si uptake is a passive process, driven primarily by transpiration, or has both passive and active components remains disputed. Increases in foliar Si concentration following herbivory suggest plants may exercise some control over Si uptake and distribution. In order to investigate passive and active controls on Si accumulation, we examined both genetic and environmental influences on Si accumulation in the forage grass Festuca arundinacea. We studied three F. arundinacea varieties that differ in the levels of Si they accumulate. Varieties not only differed in Si concentration, but also in increases in Si accumulation in response to leaf damage. The varietal differences in Si concentration generally reflected differences in stomatal density and stomatal conductance, suggesting passive, transpiration-mediated mechanisms underpin these differences. Bagging plants after damage was employed to minimize differences in stomatal conductance between varieties and in response to damage. This treatment eliminated constitutive differences in leaf Si levels, but did not impair the damage-induced increases in Si uptake: damaged, bagged plants still had more leaf Si than undamaged, bagged plants in all three varieties. Preliminary differential gene expression analysis revealed that the active Si transporter Lsi2 was highly expressed in damaged unbagged plants compared with undamaged unbagged plants, suggesting damage-induced Si defenses are regulated at gene level. Our findings suggest that although differences in transpiration may be partially responsible for varietal differences in Si uptake, they cannot explain damage-induced increases in Si uptake and deposition, suggesting that wounding causes changes in Si uptake, distribution and deposition that likely involve active processes and changes in gene expression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 December 2020.
All research outputs
#7,538,395
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#4,865
of 20,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,272
of 314,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#137
of 523 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 314,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 523 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.