Efficient method for rapid multiplication of clean and healthy willow clones via in vitro propagation with broad genotype applicability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Willow is a versatile crop with considerable potential as a source of renewable biomass for bioenergy. Although breeding new varieties takes less time compared with some other tree species, producing new willow varieties is still a slow, labour-intensive process, partly because clonally propagating the results of each cross is a bottleneck early in the breeding scheme. In this paper, we describe a facile, rapid method for the in vitro culture of a wide range of willow genotypes. We have developed a combination of media and methods for efficient tissue-culture propagation to rapidly multiply individual plants and simultaneously produce clean, stock germplasm applicable to a wide range of willow genotypes that can be phytosanitary tested to demonstrate their disease-free status. The micropropagation method described could generate in the order of 5000 viable, transplantable clones from a single plant in just 24 weeks and was used to produce phytosanitary tested breeding material for export to overcome restriction on the international transport of woody cuttings. This method could represent a valuable biotechnology adjunct to willow breeding programmes and could accommodate early selection via molecular or biochemical markers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".