Bottom Cooling During Culture Initiation Increases Survival and Reduces Hyperhydricity in Micropropagated Cannabis Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperhydricity is characterized by morphological abnormalities and reduced plant vigour. This study investigated the use of a bottom cooling system (creating an approximate 2 °C temperature differential) during culture initiation to evaluate the impact on hyperhydricity in cannabis micropropagation. Nodal explants from two clonal triploid cultivars known to exhibit hyperhydricity, Higher Education 1 (HED-1) and Higher Education 2 (HED-2), were surface sterilized and placed in culture tubes using standard methods. Treatments included bottom cooling, metal pads without bottom cooling, and standard shelving (controls-no pad). Various morphological and physiological traits were assessed, including a detached leave water loss assay, dry mass, chlorophyll content, and survival rate. Plants cultured with bottom cooling showed significantly higher survival rates, healthier appearance, and improved physiological parameters compared to controls. In contrast, many control explants were hyperhydric with translucent and brittle leaves. Quantitative data revealed significant improvements in fresh weight (54.84% for HED-1 and 51.42% for HED-2), dry weight (36% for HED-1 and 8% for HED-2), chlorophyll fluorescence ratios (7.24% for HED-1 and 9.18% for HED-2), chlorophyll content (18.38% for HED-1 and 20.67% for HED-2), and cuticle/stomate function (30% for HED-1 and 27.27% for HED-2) using bottom cooling. Moreover, our morphological observation showed that almost 85% of control plants were hyperhydric, whereas only 10% of the plants cultured with a bottom cooling system were hyperhydric. This study confirmed that bottom cooling helps reduce the rate and impacts of hyperhydricity in cannabis and significantly improves the survival and quality of in vitro plants.
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 | 0.000 |
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".