4.7 Article

Improving citrus bud grafting efficiency

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-44832-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to improve the efficiency of citrus bud-grafting. A multifactor design of experiment approach was used to determine the effects of six factors on bud-grafting measures. Four useful measures were identified for treatments of practical value. The results showed that no supplemental light reduced the number of shoots from rootstock axial buds, a south orientation and 5 mM BA maximized the percentage of grafted buds that formed shoots, a north orientation and 5 mM BA maximized the length of the longest grafted bud shoot, and 5 mM BA maximized the leaf area of the grafted bud shoots.
Commercial citrus trees are composed of a scion grafted onto a rootstock. Because grafting is one of the most expensive methods of plant propagation, grafting efficiency is of large practical importance. The purpose of this study was to improve citrus bud-grafting efficiency. The effects of six factors that included BA, Tween-20, DMSO, type of solvent (water or EtOH), cardinal orientation of grafted bud, and type of supplemental light (LED, metal halide, none) on forty-four bud-grafting measures were determined using a multifactor design of experiment approach. Four measures useful for identifying treatments of practical value included the number of rootstock axial buds that formed shoots, the percentage of grafted buds that formed shoots, the length of the longest shoot formed from the grafted buds, and the total leaf area of the grafted bud shoots. The factors that most affected these responses were no supplemental light to minimize the number of shoots from rootstock axial buds, a south orientation and 5 mM BA to maximize the percentage of grafted buds that formed shoots, a north orientation and 5 mM BA to maximize the length of the longest grafted bud shoot, and 5 mM BA to maximize the leaf area of the grafted bud shoots.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据