Specific perennial plant species serve as standard biological models in research.

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

Recorded sources

2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that specific perennial plant species serve as standard biological models in research?

Yes. Specific perennial plant species, such as Arabidopsis halleri and Populus trichocarpa, are explicitly recognized and utilized as standard biological models in scientific research.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 6 Aug 2026

The analysis

The claim states that specific perennial plant species serve as standard biological models in research. Retrieved papers 0 and 7 explicitly identify perennial species (Arabidopsis halleri and Populus trichocarpa) functioning as established biological models in ecological genomics and woody transgenic research respectively, directly supporting the claim.

Evidence for · 2

Genome assembly and annotation of Arabidopsis halleri, a model for heavy metal hyperaccumulation and evolutionary ecology

2017

Get citation

Briskine, R., Paape, T., Shimizu‐Inatsugi, R., Nishiyama, T., Akama, S., Sese, J., & Shimizu, K. (2017). Genome assembly and annotation of Arabidopsis halleri, a model for heavy metal hyperaccumulation and evolutionary ecology. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12604

See more details

More for · 1

Chromosome-scale and haplotype-resolved genome assembly of <i>Populus trichocarpa</i>.

2025

Get citation

W, G., S, W., T, J., H, H., R, G., M, Z., & G, W. (2025). Chromosome-scale and haplotype-resolved genome assembly of <i>Populus trichocarpa</i>.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhaf012

Related receipts

Is it true that Lindenmayer systems are used to model biological development and plant growth? SUPPORTED related question, same topic
Is it true that the Standard Model includes gravity? REFUTED related question, same topic

Receipt History

first checked06 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 7606 Aug 2026

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work