Optimization of In-Vitro Propagation of Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) Genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three cassava genotypes (92/0326, 95/0289 and Tropical Manioc Selection-International Institute of Tropical Agriculture-30572 (I-30572) were examined in sixteen (16) different culture media with different concentration of growth hormones, Naphaleneacetic acid (NAA-auxins) and 6 benzyl-aminopurine (BAP-cytokinins). The responses of the explants were evaluated by nodal length, survival, leaf and root formation, plant height, root and leaf number. Additive Main Effect and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) analysis was used to reveal the pattern of interaction of genotype by media-environment. The analysis of variance showed significant (P < 0.05) genotype performance with significant genotype growth differences among the different media. Highest percentage survival was recorded for 95/0289 (98%). Medium composition 1 (Murashige and Skoog (MS): 4.43 g/l; NAA: 0.01 mg/l; BAP: 0.05 mg/l) and 4 (MS: 2.22 g/l; NAA: 0.02 mg/l; BAP: 0.10 mg/l) were observed to give 100% plantlets survival. Genotype 92/0326 had the highest mean plant height (1.49 cm) and mean root number (0.82). As the best performer, full strength MS is recommended in a semi-solid medium. However, the cost-benefit and availability has to be considered. These observations, attributed to the different genetic structure and contrasting levels of hormones used, can be useful for formulating protocols that are adequately potent for microprpagation of recalcitrant cassava genotypes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".