Paper · 2017 · Ciência Rural

Potential production of Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon seedlings viarescue seedlings

Nathália Ferreira e Silva; Israel Marinho Pereira; Michele Aparecida Pereira da Silva; et al.

8
claims
14
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Translocation of rare populations is regarded as the last resort for the conservation of species whose habitat destruction is imminent. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of two height classes and three leaf reduction intensities on growth and increases in height, stem diameter, survival, and new leaf production in seedlings of Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon (peroba) obtained via rescue seedlings in a remnant of tropical semi deciduous forest. We recovered 240 individuals that were divided into two height classes (Class I-5 to 15cm and Class II-20 to 35cm) and subjected to three leaf reduction intensities (0%, 50%, and 100%), which were then transported to a shade house with 50% light reduction. Measurements of height, stem diameter, and new leaf production were collected 8 times at 0, 15, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, and 135 days, and survival rate was measured at day 135. The average survival rate was 82.9%; 77.5% for one Class I (5-15cm) and 88.3% for Class II (20-35cm). Higher seedling growth was observed for the 0% leaf reduction treatment in both height classes. The leaves insertion were greater in the 100% cuts, with a decrease observed over time. It is advisable to restore A. cylindrocarpon seedlings in two height classes owing to the high survival rate, leaf appearance, and growth reported in the present study. The no-leaf reduction treatment (0%) is the most viable alternative for the production of A. cylindrocarpon seedlings, via rescue seedlings.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean rescued seedling survival was 82.9%.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Outcome
survival ratee0
Value
82.9%e0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average survival rate was 82.9%; 77.5% for one Class I (5-15cm) and 88.3% for Class II (20-35cm).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1015 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Class I seedling survival was 77.5%.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Material
Class Ie0
Outcome
survival ratee0
Value
77.5%e0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average survival rate was 82.9%; 77.5% for one Class I (5-15cm) and 88.3% for Class II (20-35cm).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1015 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Class II seedling survival was 88.3%.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Material
Class IIe0
Outcome
survival ratee0
Value
88.3%e0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average survival rate was 82.9%; 77.5% for one Class I (5-15cm) and 88.3% for Class II (20-35cm).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1015 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seedling growth was higher with no leaf reduction in both height classes.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Treatment
0% leaf reduction treatmente0
Outcome
seedling growthe0
Direction
Highere0
Qualifier
both height classese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Higher seedling growth was observed for the 0% leaf reduction treatment in both height classes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1016–1111 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf insertion was greater with complete leaf cuts and declined over time.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Treatment
100% cutse0
Outcome
leaves insertione0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The leaves insertion were greater in the 100% cuts, with a decrease observed over time.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1199 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf insertion decreased over time after complete leaf cuts.

Taxon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpont0
Treatment
100% cutse0
Outcome
leaves insertione0
Direction
decreasee0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The leaves insertion were greater in the 100% cuts, with a decrease observed over time.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1199 · show in text ↑
t0

“Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–51 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors advise restoration using seedlings in both height classes.

Taxon
A. cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpone0
Outcome
restore A. cylindrocarpon seedlings in two height classese0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It is advisable to restore A. cylindrocarpon seedlings in two height classes owing to the high survival rate, leaf appearance, and growth reported in the present study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1200–1368 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend no leaf reduction for producing rescued seedlings.

Taxon
A. cylindrocarponAspidosperma cylindrocarpone0
Outcome
no-leaf reduction treatment (0%)e0

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

Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon
Aspidosperma cylindrocarpon · TaxonJorge EFO Silva · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The no-leaf reduction treatment (0%) is the most viable alternative for the production of A. cylindrocarpon seedlings, via rescue seedlings.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1369–1509 · show in text ↑