Effect of Different Media on In vitro Rooting in Different Cultivar of Lilium longiflorum Cv. Elite, Brunello, Cordelia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lilium (Lilium longiflorum Thunb.) belongs to the family Liliaceae and is a native of Northern Hemisphere (up to South Canada and Siberia). Conventionally Lilium can easily be propagated by sexual and asexual methods of propagation but these prevalent methods are not capable of meeting the increasing demand in domestic and global market. Generally, Lilium is propagated through bulbs but, limited number of bulbs per plant, long dormancy period of bulbs which again results into non-availability of planting material throughout the year. Keeping in view the above facts, the present study was undertaken with the following objective: “To standardize the cost effective protocol for micro propagation of lilium to produce disease free and true to type plants at a faster rate”. Methods: The present investigation was carried out in the Tissue Culture Laboratory of the Centre for Research and Application in Plant Tissue Culture. The experiment was laid out in a C.R.D. (Factorial) with three replications. In vitro raised bulblets were separated out and were transferred on to the root regeneration media. Different levels of NAA were used in MS media for the rooting of in vitro raised bulblets and percent rooting of plantlet is recorded. Result: It was interesting to note that the media LR-3 (MS + NAA 1.0 mg/l) is most efficient for rooting in all type of cultivars. All the three cultivars used responded very poor on media LR-1 (MS basal).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".