Comparative in vitro and early nursery performance of adventitious shoots from cryopreserved cotyledons and axillary shoots from epicotyls of the same zygotic embryo of control-pollinated<i>Pinus radiata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first published report comparing production and performance of adventitious shoots from cryopreserved cotyledons, with axillary shoots formed from epicotyls of the same zygotic embryo of radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don). Genotypes from 10 control-pollinated families of P. radiata in two treatments were compared for shoot initiation, in vitro growth, rooting, and early nursery performance. Plant growth in nursery beds was assessed by measuring height after 2 and 7 months. After 8 months in nursery beds, the physiological ages of genotypes were assessed before field planting. Genotype capture was higher from the cryopreserved cotyledons than from the epicotyls. This technique has the advantage of preserving juvenile material while field testing is done. Early shoot multiplication in both treatments was good. After four transfer cycles, epicotyl cultures showed improved elongation and higher multiplication rates. After 6 months of in vitro growth, shoots from both treatments were given auxin pulses. Shoots of adventitious origin were slower to root than epicotyl-derived shoots. Overall rooting rates were satisfactory. Plants of adventitious origin were shorter when planted into nursery beds and when transferred to field trials. Assessment of relative physiological age indicated that all plants of adventitious origin showed some increase.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".