Connexion
S'inscrire
Réinitialiser le mot de passe
Publier & Distribuer
Solutions d'édition
Solutions de distribution
Thèmes
Architecture et design
Arts
Business et économie
Chimie
Chimie industrielle
Droit
Géosciences
Histoire
Informatique
Ingénierie
Intérêt général
Linguistique et sémiotique
Littérature
Mathématiques
Musique
Médecine
Pharmacie
Philosophie
Physique
Sciences bibliothécaires et de l'information, études du livre
Sciences des matériaux
Sciences du vivant
Sciences sociales
Sport et loisirs
Théologie et religion
Études classiques et du Proche-Orient ancient
Études culturelles
Études juives
Publications
Journaux
Livres
Comptes-rendus
Éditeurs
Blog
Contact
Chercher
EUR
USD
GBP
Français
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Panier
Home
Journaux
Folia Horticulturae
Édition 32 (2020): Edition 1 (June 2020)
Accès libre
An efficient protocol for
Cistus crispus
L. (Cistaceae) micropropagation
Sergio Saia
Sergio Saia
et
Antonio Giovino
Antonio Giovino
| 27 juil. 2020
Folia Horticulturae
Édition 32 (2020): Edition 1 (June 2020)
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Résumé
Article
Figures et tableaux
Références
Auteurs
Articles dans cette édition
Aperçu
PDF
Citez
Partagez
Article Category:
Research Article
Publié en ligne:
27 juil. 2020
Pages:
1 - 9
Reçu:
11 avr. 2019
Accepté:
12 nov. 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0001
Mots clés
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.
Aperçu