Abstract
SummaryThe field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants. In vitro-propagated plants established and grew faster, taller and bigger than the conventional sucker-derived plants. The former produced more leaves resulting in a larger total leaf area (8001.5 cm2 per plant) than the latter (6613.1 cm2 per plant) and could be harvested earlier. The former also produced heavier bunches and fruit (15.2 kg for bunch and 200 g per finger of fruit) than the latter (9.0 kg for bunch and 136.4 g per finger of fruit). In this experiment, the in vitro-propagated plants had many intact roots and a bulk of vermiculite around their roots but the sucker-derived plants had many damaged roots at the time of planting. In addition, in vitro-propagated plants started growth earlier and grew faster enabling them to intercept more light for photosynthesis than the sucker-derived plants. This may explain the higher yield in the in vitro-propagated plants. We conclude that in vitro-propagated Shima banana performs better in terms of growth and yield than the sucker-derived plants under field conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants established and grew faster, taller and bigger than sucker-derived plants.
- Treatment
- In vitro-propagatede1
- Outcome
- established and grewe1
- Direction
- fastere1
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse1
MusaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e1“In vitro-propagated plants established and grew faster, taller and bigger than the conventional sucker-derived plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants had a larger total leaf area (8001.5 cm2 per plant) than sucker-derived plants (6613.1 cm2 per plant).
- Treatment
- in vitro-propagatede0
- Outcome
- total leaf areae2
- Direction
- largere2
- Value
- 8001.5 cm2 per plante2
- Qualifier
- 6613.1 cm2 per plante2
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e2“The former produced more leaves resulting in a larger total leaf area (8001.5 cm2 per plant) than the latter (6613.1 cm2 per plant)”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants produced more leaves than sucker-derived plants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e2“The former produced more leaves resulting in a larger total leaf area (8001.5 cm2 per plant) than the latter (6613.1 cm2 per plant)”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants could be harvested earlier than sucker-derived plants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e3“and could be harvested earlier”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants produced heavier bunches (15.2 kg per bunch) than sucker-derived plants (9.0 kg per bunch).
- Treatment
- in vitro-propagatede0
- Outcome
- bunchese4
- Direction
- heaviere4
- Value
- 15.2 kg for bunche4
- Qualifier
- 9.0 kg for bunche4
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e4“The former also produced heavier bunches and fruit (15.2 kg for bunch and 200 g per finger of fruit) than the latter (9.0 kg for bunch and 136.4 g per finger of fruit)”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants produced heavier fruit (200 g per finger) than sucker-derived plants (136.4 g per finger).
- Treatment
- in vitro-propagatede0
- Outcome
- fruite4
- Direction
- heaviere4
- Value
- 200 g per finger of fruite4
- Qualifier
- 136.4 g per finger of fruite4
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e4“The former also produced heavier bunches and fruit (15.2 kg for bunch and 200 g per finger of fruit) than the latter (9.0 kg for bunch and 136.4 g per finger of fruit)”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants had many intact roots at planting, whereas sucker-derived plants had many damaged roots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e5“the in vitro-propagated plants had many intact roots and a bulk of vermiculite around their roots but the sucker-derived plants had many damaged roots at the time of planting”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants started growth earlier than sucker-derived plants.
- Treatment
- in vitro-propagated plantse6
- Outcome
- started growthe6
- Direction
- earliere6
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e6“in vitro-propagated plants started growth earlier and grew faster enabling them to intercept more light for photosynthesis than the sucker-derived plants”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro-propagated banana plants intercepted more light for photosynthesis than sucker-derived plants.
- Treatment
- in vitro-propagated plantse6
- Outcome
- intercept more light for photosynthesise6
- Direction
- moree6
- Comparator
- sucker-derived plantse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e6“in vitro-propagated plants started growth earlier and grew faster enabling them to intercept more light for photosynthesis than the sucker-derived plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The higher yield of in vitro-propagated banana plants may be explained by their earlier growth and greater light interception.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The field performance of in vitro-propagated banana (Musa spp.) plants was compared with that of the sucker-derived plants”
e6“in vitro-propagated plants started growth earlier and grew faster enabling them to intercept more light for photosynthesis than the sucker-derived plants”
e7“This may explain the higher yield in the in vitro-propagated plants”
The same questions in other papers
in vitro · yield · MusaPositive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →in vitro · growth · MusaPositive and negative results
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →in vitro · physiology: photosynthesis · MusaResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.