The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Varietal differences in the toxicity of sodium ions in rice leaves
Open accessAbstract
Visual damage is commonly used as the criterion for assessment of salinity resistance in rice breeding programmes. The use of other indicators, such as sodium uptake, is being evaluated: a correlation between initial sodium uptake to the third leaf and varietal survival was established and the physiological basis of this examined. Chlorophyll was used as an indicator of metabolic status and the relationship between leaf sodium and chlorophyll concentrations investigated for nine varieties differing in their resistance to salinity. By sampling a population of leaves having a wide range of salt concentrations, inverse relationships between chlorophyll and sodium concentrations were established. The salt concentration in the leaf tissue which causes equivalent toxicity (50% loss of chlorophyll) differed 3‐fold amongst these varieties. Varieties showing the greatest tolerance to salt within the leaves were not necessarily those showing the greatest overall phenotypic resistance to salinity. The enzymes malate dehydrogenase and nitrate reductase were activated equally by sodium and potassium ions at 60–80 mol m−3 in both control and saline grown plants and severely inhibited at higher concentrations. If all the salt in the tissue of leaves with 50% chlorophyll remaining was in solution and uniformly distributed the concentration would be 135–500 mol m−3. This is improbable and some level of compartmentation is likely. It is concluded that while initial sodium uptake has predictive value for salinity resistance of varieties, there are other characteristics which are masked by excess salt entry and require independent assessment; no single factor confers resistance.
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
The Mechanism of Salt Tolerance in Halophytes
Flowers, T. J., Troke, P. F., & Yeo, A. R. (1977) · Annual Review of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.pp.28.060177.000513 · Cited by 1,942
Self-citation
Cited by
LUTTS, S. (1996) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1006/anbo.1996.0134 · Cited by 1,617
Screening methods for salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat
Munns, R., & James, R. A. (2003) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1024553303144 · Cited by 829
Adaptation of Plants to Salinity
Shannon, M. C. (1997) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(08)60601-x · Cited by 497
Chapter 2 Climate Change Affecting Rice Production
Wassmann, R., Jagadish, S. V. K., Heuer, S., Ismail, A., Redona, E., Serraj, R., Singh, R. K., Howell, G., Pathak, H., & Sumfleth, K. (2009) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(08)00802-x · Cited by 468
Zhou, M., Li, D., Li, Z., Hu, Q., Yang, C., Zhu, L., & Luo, H. (2013) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.112.208702 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Yeo, A. R., & Flowers, T. J.
- Venue
- Physiologia Plantarum
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-10
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 189-195
- ISSN
- 0031-9317 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3054
- OpenAlex
- W2137903139
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.51
- 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: Varietal differences in the toxicity of sodium ions in rice leaves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1983.tb00756.x
- The paper
- Yeo, A. R., & Flowers, T. J. (1983). Varietal differences in the toxicity of sodium ions in rice leaves. Physiologia Plantarum. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1983.tb00756.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.