Iniciar sesión
Registrarse
Restablecer contraseña
Publicar y Distribuir
Soluciones de Publicación
Soluciones de Distribución
Temas
Arquitectura y diseño
Artes
Ciencias Sociales
Ciencias de la Información y Bibliotecas, Estudios del Libro
Ciencias de la vida
Ciencias de los materiales
Deporte y tiempo libre
Estudios clásicos y del Cercano Oriente antiguo
Estudios culturales
Estudios judíos
Farmacia
Filosofía
Física
Geociencias
Historia
Informática
Ingeniería
Interés general
Ley
Lingüística y semiótica
Literatura
Matemáticas
Medicina
Música
Negocios y Economía
Química
Química industrial
Teología y religión
Publicaciones
Revistas
Libros
Actas
Editoriales
Blog
Contacto
Buscar
EUR
USD
GBP
Español
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrito
Home
Revistas
Folia Horticulturae
Volumen 32 (2020): Edición 1 (June 2020)
Acceso abierto
An efficient protocol for
Cistus crispus
L. (Cistaceae) micropropagation
Sergio Saia
Sergio Saia
y
Antonio Giovino
Antonio Giovino
| 27 jul 2020
Folia Horticulturae
Volumen 32 (2020): Edición 1 (June 2020)
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Resumen
Artículo
Figuras y tablas
Referencias
Autores
Artículos en este número
Vista previa
PDF
Cite
Compartir
Article Category:
Research Article
Publicado en línea:
27 jul 2020
Páginas:
1 - 9
Recibido:
11 abr 2019
Aceptado:
12 nov 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0001
Palabras clave
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.
Vista previa