Login
Registrieren
Passwort zurücksetzen
Veröffentlichen & Verteilen
Verlagslösungen
Vertriebslösungen
Themen
Allgemein
Altertumswissenschaften
Architektur und Design
Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft, Buchwissenschaft
Biologie
Chemie
Geowissenschaften
Geschichte
Industrielle Chemie
Informatik
Jüdische Studien
Kulturwissenschaften
Kunst
Linguistik und Semiotik
Literaturwissenschaft
Materialwissenschaft
Mathematik
Medizin
Musik
Pharmazie
Philosophie
Physik
Rechtswissenschaften
Sozialwissenschaften
Sport und Freizeit
Technik
Theologie und Religion
Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Veröffentlichungen
Zeitschriften
Bücher
Konferenzberichte
Verlage
Blog
Kontakt
Suche
EUR
USD
GBP
Deutsch
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Warenkorb
Home
Zeitschriften
Folia Horticulturae
Band 32 (2020): Heft 1 (June 2020)
Uneingeschränkter Zugang
An efficient protocol for
Cistus crispus
L. (Cistaceae) micropropagation
Sergio Saia
Sergio Saia
und
Antonio Giovino
Antonio Giovino
| 27. Juli 2020
Folia Horticulturae
Band 32 (2020): Heft 1 (June 2020)
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zusammenfassung
Artikel
Figuren und Tabellen
Referenzen
Autoren
Artikel in dieser Ausgabe
Vorschau
PDF
Zitieren
Teilen
Article Category:
Research Article
Online veröffentlicht:
27. Juli 2020
Seitenbereich:
1 - 9
Eingereicht:
11. Apr. 2019
Akzeptiert:
12. Nov. 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0001
Schlüsselwörter
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.
Vorschau