Login
Registrati
Reimposta password
Pubblica & Distribuisci
Soluzioni Editoriali
Soluzioni di Distribuzione
Temi
Architettura e design
Arti
Business e Economia
Chimica
Chimica industriale
Farmacia
Filosofia
Fisica
Geoscienze
Ingegneria
Interesse generale
Legge
Letteratura
Linguistica e semiotica
Matematica
Medicina
Musica
Scienze bibliotecarie e dell'informazione, studi library
Scienze dei materiali
Scienze della vita
Scienze informatiche
Scienze sociali
Sport e tempo libero
Storia
Studi classici e del Vicino Oriente antico
Studi culturali
Studi ebraici
Teologia e religione
Pubblicazioni
Riviste
Libri
Atti
Editori
Blog
Contatti
Cerca
EUR
USD
GBP
Italiano
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrello
Home
Riviste
Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Numero 1 (June 2020)
Accesso libero
An efficient protocol for
Cistus crispus
L. (Cistaceae) micropropagation
Sergio Saia
Sergio Saia
e
Antonio Giovino
Antonio Giovino
| 27 lug 2020
Folia Horticulturae
Volume 32 (2020): Numero 1 (June 2020)
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Sommario
Articolo
Immagini e tabelle
Bibliografia
Autori
Articoli in questo Numero
Anteprima
PDF
Cita
CONDIVIDI
Article Category:
Research Article
Pubblicato online:
27 lug 2020
Pagine:
1 - 9
Ricevuto:
11 apr 2019
Accettato:
12 nov 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2020-0001
Parole chiave
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.
Anteprima