CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of salt concentration, pH, and their interaction on plant growth, nutrient uptake, and photochemistry of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) leaves

Kaiwen, Guo, Zisong, Xu, Yuze, Huo, Qi, Sun, Yue, Wang, Yanhui, Che, Jiechen, Wang, Wei, Li, Huihui, Zhang·2020·Plant Signaling & Behavior
DOI 10.1080/15592324.2020.1832373
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15592324.2020.1832373

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The pH values tested in phytoremediation studies, when available, correspond to neutral conditions, which may facilitate plant growth.

    “Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the pH values tested, when available, correspond to neutral conditions, which may facilitate plant growth [69].”

    From Chromium Remediation from Tannery Wastewater in Arequipa, Peru: Local Experiences and Prospects for Sustainable Solutions (2025) · cites this paper as [69]

    The available copy contains a Results and analysis heading for plant growth (section 2.1), but no findings or tested pH values. Searches for neutral pH, pH 7, and growth under neutral versus alkaline conditions returned only headings and links, so the copy does not establish whether neutral conditions facilitated growth or characterize pH values in phytoremediation studies. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1007/s11356-017-8904-x · DOI
  2. Yan SH, 2006, World Sci-Technol Res Dev, 28, 70
  3. 10.1007/s11104-016-3007-x · DOI
  4. 10.1093/jxb/erj100 · DOI
  5. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00411.x · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s11104-007-9251-3 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110259 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110164 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103955 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s11099-008-0047-3 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.12.018 · DOI
  13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0085282 · DOI
  14. Zhang HH, 2017, Legume Res, 40, 853
  15. 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.10.017 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2009.00406.x · DOI
  17. 10.1007/BF02183802 · DOI
  18. 10.2134/agronj2010.0022 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.07.006 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.scienta.2013.03.032 · DOI
  21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0186052 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2016.02.001 · DOI
  23. 10.1186/s12870-019-1660-y · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109624 · DOI
  25. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01806 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/15592324.2017.1376157 · DOI
  27. 10.3389/fpls.2018.00714 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.013 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s10333-009-0166-x · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s11104-017-3242-9 · DOI
  31. Ruicai L, 2016, Front Plant Sci, 7, 424
  32. 10.1186/s12870-018-1250-4 · DOI
  33. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01208 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/s10535-012-0075-5 · DOI
  35. 10.1371/journal.pone.0181589 · DOI
  36. 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.00431 · DOI
  37. Ashrafi E, 2018, J Plant Nutr, 1
  38. 10.1071/FP03032 · DOI
  39. Shao XJ, 2009, Chin J Appl Ecol, 20, 1390
  40. Bao SD, 2005, Soil analysis
  41. 10.1038/srep32717 · DOI
  42. 10.1093/jxb/eri235 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110469 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122899 · DOI
  45. 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1995.tb09240.x · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110856 · DOI
  47. 10.1038/srep34455 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaiwen, G., Zisong, X., Yuze, H., Qi, S., Yue, W., Yanhui, C., Jiechen, W., Wei, L., & Huihui, Z.
Affiliations
  • College of Resources and Environment, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
  • Key Laboratory of Saline-alkali Vegetation Ecology Restoration, Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China
Venue
Plant Signaling & Behavior
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-10-19
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
1832373
ISSN
1559-2324
DOI
10.1080/15592324.2020.1832373
Cited by
97
References
0
Language
en
Funders
  • Young Talents’ Project of Northeast Agricultural University (18QC12)
  • The National Natural Science Fund (31901088)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review