Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 517

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 142 of the 142 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Energy costs of salt tolerance in crop plants

Open access
Munns, Rana, Day, David A., Fricke, Wieland, Watt, Michelle, Arsova, Borjana, Barkla, Bronwyn J., Bose, Jayakumar, Byrt, Caitlin S., Chen, Zhong‐Hua, Foster, Kylie J., Gilliham, Matthew, Henderson, Sam W., Jenkins, Colin L. D., Kronzucker, Herbert J., Miklavcic, Stanley J., Plett, Darren, Roy, Stuart J., Shabala, Sergey, Shelden, Megan C., Soole, Kathleen L., Taylor, Nicolas L., Tester, Mark, Wege, Stefanie, Wegner, Lars H., Tyerman, Stephen D.·2020·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Agriculture is expanding into regions that are affected by salinity. This review considers the energetic costs of salinity tolerance in crop plants and provides a framework for a quantitative assessment of costs. Different sources of energy, and modifications of root system architecture that would maximize water vs ion uptake are addressed. Energy requirements for transport of salt (NaCl) to leaf vacuoles for osmotic adjustment could be small if there are no substantial leaks back across plasma membrane and tonoplast in root and leaf. The coupling ratio of the H+‐ATP ase also is a critical component. One proposed leak, that of Na+ influx across the plasma membrane through certain aquaporin channels, might be coupled to water flow, thus conserving energy. For the tonoplast, control of two types of cation channels is required for energy efficiency. Transporters controlling the Na+ and Cl− concentrations in mitochondria and chloroplasts are largely unknown and could be a major energy cost. The complexity of the system will require a sophisticated modelling approach to identify critical transporters, apoplastic barriers and root structures. This modelling approach will inform experimentation and allow a quantitative assessment of the energy costs of NaCl tolerance to guide breeding and engineering of molecular components.

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 · 10.1111/nph.15864

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 142 references

Cited by

See all 517

Metadata

Authors
Munns, R., Day, D. A., Fricke, W., Watt, M., Arsova, B., Barkla, B. J., Bose, J., Byrt, C. S., Chen, Z., Foster, K. J., Gilliham, M., Henderson, S. W., Jenkins, C. L. D., Kronzucker, H. J., Miklavcic, S. J., Plett, D., Roy, S. J., Shabala, S., Shelden, M. C., Soole, K. L., Taylor, N. L., Tester, M., Wege, S., Wegner, L. H., & Tyerman, S. D.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-11
Volume
225
Issue
3
Pages
1072-1090
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2937099508
Cited by
517
References
142
FWCI
38.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Energy costs of salt tolerance in crop plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.15864
The paper
Munns, R., Day, D. A., Fricke, W., Watt, M., Arsova, B., Barkla, B. J., Bose, J., Byrt, C. S., Chen, Z., Foster, K. J., Gilliham, M., Henderson, S. W., Jenkins, C. L. D., Kronzucker, H. J., Miklavcic, S. J., Plett, D., Roy, S. J., Shabala, S., Shelden, M. C., . . . Tyerman, S. D. (2020). Energy costs of salt tolerance in crop plants. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15864

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.