ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2015
Differential responses of C3 and CAM native Brazilian plant species to a SO2- and SPMFe-contaminated Restinga.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Nature to Lab: A Review of Secondary Metabolite Biosynthetic Pathways, Environmental Influences, and In Vitro Approaches.Metabolites · 2023Review
- Physiological and morphoanatomical effects of glyphosate in Eugenia uniflora, a Brazilian plant species native to the Atlantic Forest biome.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- How does drought affect native grasses' photosynthesis on the revegetation of iron ore tailings?Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Clusia hilariana and Eugenia uniflora as bioindicators of atmospheric pollutants emitted by an iron pelletizing factory in Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aiming to evaluate responses in terms of growth rates, physiological parameters, and degree of sensitivity to SO2 and SPMFe in Eugenia uniflora L. (Myrtaceae, a C3 species) and Clusia hilariana Schlecht (Clusiaceae, a CAM species); saplings were exposed to emissions from a pelletizing factory for 7 months. The species were distributed along a transect (200, 500, 800, 1400, and 1700 m away from the emission source), and analyses were performed after 71, 118, and 211 days of exposure to the pollutants. E. uniflora received higher superficial deposition of particulate iron. The highest total iron foliar contents were observed 200 m away from the emission source in both plant species, while the highest total sulfur foliar contents were observed 200 m away in C. hilariana and 800 m away in E. uniflora. E. uniflora presented decreased values of height growth rate, number of necrotic leaves, chlorophyll analysis (SPAD index) and transpiration, in relation to the distances from the emission source. C. hilariana showed decreased values of height growth rate, number of leaves, number of necrotic leaves, total ionic permeability, stomatal conductance, transpiration, net CO2 assimilation, and total dry matter, in relation to distances from the emission source. In relation to the days of exposure, both species presented increased number of necrotic leaves and foliar phytotoxicity index, and decreased values in the chlorophyll analysis. The two native plant species, both of which occur in the Brazilian Restinga, showed damage when exposed to emissions from an iron ore pelletizing factory. C. hilariana was considered the most sensitive species due to the decreased values in a higher number of variables after exposition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25956514What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.