Cited by 111Selenium in Biological SystemsPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Contrasting Selenate‐Sulfate Interactions in Selenium‐Accumulating and Nonaccumulating Plant Species

Parker, D. R., Page, A. L., Bell, Paul F.·1992·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The shoots of primary Se‐accumulating plant species can accrue Se to several thousand micrograms per gram of dry weight, even when growing in gypsiferous soils, yet no detailed studies of the mutual antagonism between SeO 4 and SO 4 during plant uptake have been conducted with these species. In a comparative study, we grew a nonaccumulator (alfalfa, [ Medicago sativa L.]) and a primary Se accumulator [ Astragalus bisulcatus (Hook.) A. Gray] in identical nutrient solutions with varied SeO 4 (2–80 µ M ) and SO 4 (0.5–15.5 m M ) concentrations for 21 (alfalfa) or 32 to 35 d ( A. bisulcatus ). Shoot S concentrations in alfalfa were increased by increases in solution SeO 4 , but only when shoot Se was above ≈20 µg g −1 , suggesting that SeO 4 ‐induced stimulation of S uptake may be a result of incipient Se toxicity. Similar stimulations of S uptake were less apparent in A. bisulcatus . Alfalfa shoot Se concentrations ranged from 4 to 154 µg g −1 , while the same treatments resulted in shoot levels of 175 to 1200 µg g −1 in A. bisulcatus . Uptake of SeO 4 by alfalfa was profoundly inhibited by increases in solution SO 4 , while Se uptake by A. bisulcatus was much less, although still significantly, affected. Comparison of molar Se/S ratios in plants and nutrient solutions indicated discrimination against Se by alfalfa, but preferential accumulation of Se by A. bisulcatus . A reevaluation of previously published results was in general agreement with our findings, and suggested that primary Se accumulators have a unique ability to accumulate SeO 4 in the face of competition from SO 4 . These species could thus prove useful in efforts to remediate Se‐contaminated soils or sediments that are also enriched in SO 4 . Overall plant discrimination between SeO 4 and SO 4 may be related to (i) discrimination between the two analogues during initial absorption, or (ii) differential retranslocation of these elements to the root with subsequent afflux to the external solution.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600060028x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Parker, D. R., Page, A. L., & Bell, P. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Parker, D. R.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-11
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
1818-1824
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2049593646
Cited by
111
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Selenium in Biological Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Nitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Keywords
selenium accumulation, selenate, sulfate, plant selenium uptake, Astragalus bisulcatus, alfalfa, selenium toxicity, gypsiferous soils, hydroponics

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