The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley
Open accessAbstract
Development of salt‐tolerant genotypes is central both to remediation of salinity‐affected land and to meet increasing global food demand, which has been driving expansion of cropping into marginal areas. The bottleneck of any breeding programme is the lack of a reliable screening technique. This study tested the hypothesis that the ability of plants to retain K+ under saline conditions is central to their salt tolerance. Using seven barley cultivars contrasting in salt tolerance (CM72, Numar, ZUG293, ZUG95, Franklin, Gairdner, ZUG403), a comprehensive study was undertaken of whole‐plant (growth rate, biomass, net CO 2 assimilation, chlorophyll fluorescence, root and leaf elemental and water content) and cellular (net fluxes of H+, K+, Na+ and Ca 2+) responses to various concentrations of NaCl (20–320 m m). Na+ selective microelectrodes were found to be unsuitable for screening purposes because of non‐ideal selectivity of the commercially available Na+ LIX. At the same time, our results show very strong negative correlation between the magnitude of K+ efflux from the root and salt tolerance of a particular cultivar. K+ efflux from the mature root zone of intact 3‐day‐old seedlings following 40 min pretreatment with 80 m m NaCl was found to be a reliable screening indicator for salinity tolerance in barley. As a faster and more cost‐effective alternative to microelectrode measurements, a procedure was developed enabling rapid screening of large numbers of seedlings, based on amount of K+ leaked from plant roots after exposure to NaCl.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide
Maxwell, K., & Johnson, G. N. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jexbot/51.345.659 · Cited by 9,347
Factors affecting CO 2 assimilation, leaf injury and growth in salt-stressed durum wheat
James, R. A., Rivelli, A. R., Munns, R., & Caemmerer, S. V. (2002) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp02069 · Cited by 330
Everard, J. D., Gucci, R., Kann, S. C., Flore, J. A., & Loescher, W. H. (1994) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.106.1.281 · Cited by 245
Cited by
Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance
Munns, R., & Tester, M. (2008) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 · Cited by 13,792
Salinity tolerance of crops – what is the cost?
Munns, R., & Gilliham, M. (2015) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13519 · Cited by 1,296
Shabala, S., & Pottosin, I. (2014) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/ppl.12165 · Cited by 720
Self-citationEnergy costs of salt tolerance in crop plants
Munns, R., Day, D. A., Fricke, W., Watt, M., Arsova, B., Barkla, B. J., Bose, J., Byrt, C. S., Chen, Z., Foster, K. J., et al. (2020) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15864 · Cited by 517
Self-citationOsmotic adjustment and energy limitations to plant growth in saline soil
Munns, R., Passioura, J. B., Colmer, T. D., & Byrt, C. S. (2020) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15862 · Cited by 481
Metadata
- Authors
- CHEN, Z., NEWMAN, I., ZHOU, M., MENDHAM, N., ZHANG, G., & SHABALA, S.
- Venue
- Plant, Cell & Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-06-16
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1230-1246
- ISSN
- 0140-7791 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3040
- OpenAlex
- W2118068469
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01364.x
- The paper
- CHEN, Z., NEWMAN, I., ZHOU, M., MENDHAM, N., ZHANG, G., & SHABALA, S. (2005). Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley. Plant, Cell & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01364.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.