The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The efficiency of Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae) root hairs in phosphorus acquisition
Abstract
Arabidopsis thaliana root hairs grow longer and denser in response to low‐phosphorus availability. In addition, plants with the root hair response acquire more phosphorus than mutants that have root hairs that do not respond to phosphorus limiting conditions. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the efficiency of root hairs in phosphorus acquisition at high‐ and low‐phosphorus availability. Root hair growth, root growth, root respiration, plant phosphorus uptake, and plant phosphorus content of 3‐wk‐old wild‐type Arabidopsis (WS) were compared to two root hair mutants (rhd6 and rhd2) under high (54 mmol/m 3) and low (0.4 mmol/m 3) phosphorus availability. A cost‐benefit analysis was constructed from the measurements to determine root hair efficiency. Under high‐phosphorus availability, root hairs did not have an effect on any of the parameters measured. Under low‐phosphorus availability, wild‐type Arabidopsis had greater total root surface area, shoot biomass, phosphorus per root length, and specific phosphorus uptake. The cost‐benefit analysis shows that under low phosphorus, wild‐type roots acquire more phosphorus for every unit of carbon respired or unit of phosphorus invested into the roots than the mutants. We conclude that the response of root hairs to low‐phosphorus availability is an efficient strategy for phosphorus acquisition.
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
Test of an Ascorbic Acid Method for Determining Phosphorus in Water and NaHCO 3 Extracts from Soil
Watanabe, F. S., & Olsen, S. R. (1965) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1965.03615995002900060025x · Cited by 2,485
Cited by
Root phenotypes for improved nutrient capture: an underexploited opportunity for global agriculture
Lynch, J. P. (2019) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15738 · Cited by 774
Self-citationFunctional biology of plant phosphate uptake at root and mycorrhiza interfaces
Bucher, M. (2007) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01935.x · Cited by 718
Responses of root architecture development to low phosphorus availability: a review
Niu, Y. F., Chai, R. S., Jin, G. L., Wang, H., Tang, C. X., & Zhang, Y. S. (2013) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcs285 · Cited by 617
Root developmental adaptation to phosphate starvation: better safe than sorry
Péret, B., Clément, M., Nussaume, L., & Desnos, T. (2011) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2011.05.006 · Cited by 538
Root system architecture: insights from Arabidopsis and cereal crops
Smith, S., & De Smet, I. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0234 · Cited by 439
Metadata
- Authors
- Bates, T. R., & Lynch, J. P.
- Venue
- American Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 964-970
- ISSN
- 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2093175388
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The efficiency of Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae) root hairs in phosphorus acquisition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2656995
- The paper
- Bates, T. R., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). The efficiency of Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae) root hairs in phosphorus acquisition. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.2307/2656995
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.