Development of Micropropagation in Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural populations of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh) trees contain, at low frequency, individuals with stems that have attractive and valuable wavy grain in the wood. To maintain the genotype of these individuals, vegetative propagation is desired. To enable propagation from the limited amount of plant tissue that is often available, an in vitro micropropagation procedure was developed. A mix of wild trees was used as source material to generate a procedure that is genotype unspecific. Among tested basal media, DKW medium resulted in the highest frequency of growing shoots. For multiplication of shoots, removal of the apex of shoot explants was instrumental, presumably because this treatment broke a strong apical dominance in this species. Of tested hormone and hormone combinations, 0.1 μM thidiazuron produced the best results with an average of 3.2 axillary shoots per explant with an average of 3.7 nodes per axillary shoot after 1 month. Although rooting did not require hormone treatment, a 68% frequency of rooting was obtained on ½ MS supplemented with 1 μM IBA, 27% higher than hormone-free media. Taken together, we have developed a procedure for propagation of bigleaf maple from a limited amount of tissues that can be used to multiply various genotypes of interest.
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".