500
T
oT
—T
“T
|
T
W
Sa 400--
35
a =
Sy
~
a
3-5
4
BS
eG WO
CF = 3.708
535CU
S|
gl
40
imo
5S
58
200;-
3
S&
cc
|
L
A
Linear regression line “4
A
y = 1.668x + 108.69
H
S 8 100;
S
q
4
A
2§
Oo
a
0
L
25
i
«|
50
75
—
100
Concentration in soil — pCi/g dry weight
Fig. 9.
Correlation of the ay Cs concentration in mature Seaevola aud Messersehiitdaia leaves with the concentration of V3leg in the soil at the same site.
for concentration
site).
factors caiculated
Concentration
factors calcu-
for mature Seawevola and coconut leat
lated from unassociated plant and
samples for which no soil samples
soil factors show a variation of
From the same
three orders of magnitude in the
37
location are available.
We selected mature Seaevola and coco-
case
nut leaves for this comparison because
Seuevola
they provide
factors calculated
samples
the largest number of
of
the ranges
A comparison
in Table 9 shows
leaves
while
concentration
from associated
data vary by one order of magnitude
in both the assoctated and
unassocijiated categories.
Cs uptake by mature
of
or less.
These results agree with the
wide range of concentration factors
the
Importance of using associated plant-
calculated in previous surveys from
soil data (data from the same’ sampling
unassociated plant and soil samples.’
—-?0-
.
;
]