In vitro regeneration of <i>Pinus pinaster</i> adult trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regeneration of adult conifer trees by means of in vitro culture has been the subject of intense study during the last 20 years. Propagation by tissue culture may become the best method for obtaining multiple identical trees and for capturing the genetic gain in breeding programs. However, the method has several problems related to phase change of trees (juvenile–adult) that limit its practical applications. In this study, shoot buds were collected from 20 maritime pine ( Pinus pinaster Ait.) adult trees (>20 years old) from November to March. Buds were cut transversely into 0.5–1.0 cm slices and cultured on several media (DCR, WP and modified LP) supplemented with cytokinins (6-benzyladenine, metatopolin, or zeatin) at two concentrations (25 or 50 μmol/L). The highest organogenic response (axillary shoots formation ability) occurred on DCR medium supplemented with 25 μmol/L zeatin and metatopolin, and 25 or 50 μmol/L 6-benzyladenine. All shoots that regenerated on DCR medium with 25 μmol/L 6-benzyladenine developed healthy and well rooted plantlets. The ability to micropropagate adult trees represents a significant progress in the application of biotechnology to forest tree improvement programs, and it opens the possibility of using select trees in agroforestry areas under biotic or abiotic stress.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".