ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Impact of
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Seedling emergence and early crop establishment are critical stages for crop productivity, yet they are highly vulnerable to abiotic stress and nutrient limitation. Although plant biostimulants have emerged as promising tools to enhance crop resilience, their influence on micronutrient dynamics during early development remains poorly understood. This study provides one of the first integrated assessments of micronutrient uptake and remobilisation in two major cereal crops, winter barley and wheat, during early seedling growth. Methods: Three commercial Ascophyllum nodosum extracts (ANE A, ANE B and ANE C) were compared to determine whether compositional differences translated into distinct physiological responses in wheat. Under controlled in-vitro conditions using nutrient-free (0 MS) and reduced-nutrient (1/10 MS) media, ANE A was applied either foliarly or directly to the growth medium. Its influence on nutrients uptake and remobilisation was assessed using ICP-MS. Results: The extracts showed clear functional divergence: ANE A and ANE C significantly increased biomass, with ANE A primarily enhancing root growth and uniquely increasing several micronutrients, while all extracts improved selected macro- and secondary nutrients. Based on its performance, ANE A was selected for detailed mechanistic evaluation. Across both cereals, ANE A significantly increased root biomass (12-26% over controls) and induced distinct shifts in macro- (K, P), secondary- (Ca, Mg) and micronutrient (B, Mn, Cu, Fe, Mo, Zn) accumulation and partitioning. Nutrient use efficiency metrics further confirmed enhanced uptake and translocation, indicating an active role of ANE A in micronutrient mobilisation. Discussion: By revealing how ANE A reprograms early nutrient allocation and improves micronutrient dynamics under nutrient-limited conditions, this study advances mechanistic understanding of ANE-based biostimulants and supports their potential use in resilient, sustainable nutrient management strategies for cereal production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.