Adjusting the Minigrafting Technique Applied to Citrus by Using Rootstocks Grown in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Techniques applied to promote citrus propagation are of extreme relevance, since they assure high yield rates, as well as high genetic and phytosanitary quality. The aim of the present research is to assess the vegetative growth and survival of citrus cultivars subjected to different rootstocks through minigrafting in order to generate identical to the parents. Minigrafting of apical segments (1 and 2 cm long) of ‘Clementine’ tangerine budded onto rootstocks of citrandarins ‘Indio’ and ‘Riverside’ and of the combination between varieties ‘Pera’ sweet orange, ‘Sunki Madarin’ tangerine and ‘Santa Cruz Rangpur’ lemon budded onto rootstocks of citrandarins ‘Indio’, HTR-069 and LRF × (LCR × TR)-005 were evaluated. Assessments were conducted in greenhouse 120 days after the experiment were installed. The use of 2cm long segments facilitates minigrafting adherence to smaller caudal apices. The rootstock of HTR-069 presented the best survival responses among the assessed crowns. Rootstock of citrandarin ‘Indio’ enabled the best crown length development and graft diameter. Based on the results, minigrafting can be a new option for citrus propagation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".