Observationmodel-written summary

Embryo production did not differ between parent line and sublines.

A claim from Dried Cryopreserved Somatic Embryos of Two Picea Species Provide Suitable Material for Direct Plantlet Regeneration and Germplasm Storage · 2000

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Embryo production did not differ between parent line and sublines.

Taxon
Picea spp.Piceae1
Material
parent linee0
Outcome
embryo productione0
Direction
No differencee0
Comparator
sub-linese0

Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Picea
Picea · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)The original uploader was MPF at English Wikipedia . · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No difference in embryo production was noticed between the parent line (1st embryogenic cycle) and the sub-lines (2nd embryogenic cycle).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1185–1322
e1

“Picea spp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 112–122

Title

Dried Cryopreserved Somatic Embryos of Two Picea Species Provide Suitable Material for Direct Plantlet Regeneration and Germplasm Storage

C Bomal Annals of Botany 2000. doi:10.1006/anbo.2000.1176

Other claims from this paper (11)

Record rev-46efb25d5dcfcc7ba32cfad2b8ca7a49cdcb5ccf6083c9ab06d697daa1f545d5 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 8 in the model’s answer