Influence of propagation method a nd indole-3-butyric acid on growth and development of in vitro- and ex vitro-derived lingonberry plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of two propagation methods and four indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) concentrations were studied in two cultivars of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.). Cultivars Regal and Erntedank, propagated by conventional softwood cuttings (SC) and adventitious shoot regeneration from excised leaves of micropropagated shoots (LC), were evaluated for growth and morphology. Significant two- and three-way interactions for shoot and rhizome characteristics were observed among the treatments. The LC plants produced shorter and less-vigorous shoots but had more stems, branches, leaves and rhizomes in contrast to conventional cuttings, which rarely produced rhizomes. IBA had an effect on shoot and rhizome morphology, but not on the frequency of rhizome formation. In vitro culture on zeatin-containing nutrient medium apparently induces the juvenile branching characteristics that favored enhanced rhizome production. The advantage of shoot and rhizome production of adventitiously produced LC plants over SC plants varied between the genotypes. Erntedank plants had better shoot growth and rhizome development across propagation methods than did Regal plants. Key words: Vaccinium vitis-idaea, propagation, regeneration, cuttings, indole-3-butyric acid
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".