Login
Register
Reset Password
Publish & Distribute
Publishing Solutions
Distribution Solutions
Subjects
Publications
Journals
Books
Proceedings
Publishers
Blog
Contact
Search
Cart
EUR
USD
GBP
English
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Home
Journals
Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)
Open Access
An efficient protocol for
Cistus crispus
L. (Cistaceae) micropropagation
Sergio Saia
Sergio Saia
and
Antonio Giovino
Antonio Giovino
| Jul 27, 2020
Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Abstract
Article
Figures & Tables
References
Authors
Articles in this Issue
Preview
PDF
Cite
Share
Article Category:
Research Article
Published Online:
Jul 27, 2020
Page range:
1 - 9
Received:
Apr 11, 2019
Accepted:
Nov 12, 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0001
Keywords
biotechnology
,
conservation
,
Mediterranean maquis
,
plant hormones
,
rockrose
© 2020 Sergio Saia et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Figure 1
(A) Experimental unit at the beginning of the experiment: apical sprout from primary and secondary branches. (B) Experimental unit at the time of establishment in vitro.
Figure 2
Percentage of sterile (left panel) and vital explants (right panel) of Cistus crispus at increasing sodium hypochlorite concentration (CHC) and time of sterilisation (TS). Data are values of mean ± standard error. For sterile explants, CHC: F = 31.2, p < 0.001; TS: F = 423.6, p < 0.001; and CHC × TS: F = 2.5, p = 0.088. For vital explants, CHC: F = 135.2, p < 0.001; TS: F = 276.7, p < 0.001; and CHC × TS: F = 4.0, p = 0.022. When CHC × TS was significant, treatments were separated by t-grouping of the LSMEANS estimate. Treatments with a letter in common are not different at t0.05-grouping.
Figure 3
Coefficient of proliferation (c.p.), number of root (n.r.), and percentage of healthy explants (h.e.) of Cistus crispus cuttings at increasing benzylaminopurine (BA) concentration. Data are values of mean ± standard error. c.p.: F = 652.3, p < 0.001; n.r.: F = 15.1, p < 0.001; and h.e.: F = 314.3, p < 0.001. Within each variable, treatments with a letter in common are not different at p > 0.05 according to the Tukey's test applied to the LSMEANS estimates’ differences.
Figure 4
Coefficient of axillary shoot proliferation of Cistus crispus microcuttings at increasing concentration (CCYT) of cytokinins (CYTs): benzylaminopurine (BA), kinetin (Kin), or dimethylallylamino purine (2iP). Data are values of mean ± standard error. CYT: F = 67.3, p < 0.001; CCYT: F = 75.2, p < 0.001; and CCYT (CYT): F = 20.6, p < 0.001. DFnum and DFden of CCYT (CYT) were 4 and 27, respectively. Treatments with a letter in common are not different at p > 0.05 according to the Tukey's test applied to the LSMEANS estimates’ differences.
Figure 5
Root number of Cistus crispus microcuttings at increasing concentration (CAUX) of auxin (AUX): indole acetic acid (IAA) or indole butyric acid (IBA). Data are values of mean ± standard error. AUX: F = 11.4, p = 0.003; CAUX: F = 8.6, p = 0.002; CAUX (AUX): F = 0.007, p = 0.935. DFnum and DFden of CAUX (AUX) were 2 and 18, respectively.
Preview