Micropropagation of Different Citrus Rootstocks Using WPM Medium Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micropropagation is a method that enables in vitro cloning of cultivated plants, irrespective of their potential to produce seeds and their polyembryony rate, guaranteeing genetic identity and absence of phytosanitary problems of the propagated plants if the multiplication process is conducted suitably. In this respect, citrus rootstocks of agronomic interest were micropropagated in Wood Plant Medium (WPM). The experiment was conducted in the municipality of Cruz das Almas, in the Recôncavo Baiano region of Bahia state, Brazil, with 10 rootstocks: ‘Indio’, ‘Riverside’ and ‘San Diego’ citrandarins, ‘Sunki Tropical’ mandarin, and the hybrids RL × TR-001, FRL × (RL × TR)-005, CSM × (RL × TR)-059, TRH-051, TRH-069 and CSM × TRBK-Colombia. Nodal segments of these genotypes, with approximate length of 1 cm, were used. The number of plants formed per explant was evaluated 180 days after inoculation. The experimental design was completely randomized, with ten treatments and 12 repetitions, the data obtained were submitted to analysis of variance (F-test) and the grouped means were analyzed by the Scott-Knott test, in both cases a 5% probability. In vitro culture of explants of the ten genotypes studied presented positive responses to micropropagation in the WPM medium, once the explants of all genotypes showed direct regeneration and formed plants. The citrandarin 'Indio' he stood out with the highest average of explants by plant (4.20).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".